90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Supreme Court, Immigration Reform, Obama In Africa

With Anthony Brooks in for Tom Asbhrook

Gay marriage and more at the High Court. President Obama to Africa. A Cold War over Edward Snowden. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

"Equal justice under law," reads the text on the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Mike Renlund/Flickr)

“Equal justice under law,” reads the text on the facade of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Mike Renlund/Flickr)

In the news this week: The Senate passes major immigration reform, but House Republicans call it dead on arrival.

Also, major Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage, voting rights and affirmative action.

President Obama pushes a big plan to cut greenhouse gasses.

NFL star Erin Hernandez charged with murder, Paula Dean with racism.

A filibustering Texas lawmaker talks for 11 straight hours.

And Nelson Mandela clings to life.

This hour, On Point: Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Guests

Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal, where he writes their Capital Journal column. (@GeraldFSeib)

William McKenzie, editorial columnist for The Dallas Morning News. (@Bill_McKenzie)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From The Reading List

SCOTUS Blog

Slate: Supreme Court 2013: The Year In Review

The Associated Press: Obama: No Wheeling Or Dealing To Extradite Snowden – “Obama said the damage to U.S. national security has already been done and his top focus now is making sure it can’t happen again.”

NPR: Obama’s Climate Strategy Doesn’t Require Congressional Approval – “President Obama unveiled a sweeping plan Tuesday designed to deal with climate change. For the first time, carbon emissions from power plants would be regulated. The policy, which can be implemented by the administration without congressional approval, calls for a broad range of actions, including steps to deal with extreme weather events that are already occurring.”

The New York Times: Mandela’s Illness Weighs On Obama’s Africa Trip – “Mr. Mandela has long been a beacon for Mr. Obama, who recounted again on Thursday how the revolution unleashed by Mr. Mandela a world away had inspired his own activisim. Friends of Mr. Obama say that for him and many of his contemporaries, the fight against apartheid was the equivalent of the civil rights movement of an earlier generation.”

WBUR: Federal Grand Jury Indicts Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev – “The indictment charges the 19-year-old with using a weapon of mass destruction and bombing a place of public use, resulting in death, among other charges.”

 

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • 1Brett1

    Rep. Jodie Laubenberg [R-Texas] is yet another Republican with lunatic ideas about rape. This is a pattern among Republicans active in government, a feature of the mainstream in the Party, and certainly not simply isolated incidents by Republicans who are no longer in office:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/headlines/20130625-collin-county-rep.-jodie-laubenberg-in-spotlight-for-rape-kit-comment.ece

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/24/jodie-laubenberg-texas-rape_n_3493220.html

    • Ray in VT

      I heard that one earlier in the week, and I saw John Oliver poke fun at her.  It is just amazing, isn’t it.  My wife asked how people can stay in office, or get in office for that matter, when making such statements.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I hate to use my go-to line again, but this woman is in the Texas Lege. That’s not any ordinary idea of “office”.

      • John_in_Amherst

         It is a testament to our education system.  The GOP penchant for cutting school spending and diverting funds to institutions that substitute theology for science is a key to their political strategy.

        • Ray in VT

          I was rather heartened to see that the Louisiana law that was sending state dollars to schools that used texts that said that the Loch Ness Monster was real and was proof that men and dinosaurs lived at the same time (or something) got struck down.

          • 1Brett1

            Wait, WHAT?!?! The Loch Ness monster isn’t real?!?!

          • Ray in VT

            His existence is being covered up by the evolutionists.

    • Don_B1

      I take it as yet another demonstration of the willingness of all Republicans to at least mouth the hard rightwing mantra, as Rep. Laubenberg had to slowly and deliberately read the words describing the reasoning for her bill, almost as if she didn’t really believe it, or at least she had never heard of this “feature” of rape kits before.

      She effectively outsourced the “abortion” of a rape-created fetus from the woman’s body to the rape kit.

      • 1Brett1

        The whole thing was bizarre. 

      • Ray in VT

        I thought that a lady’s body had ways of shutting that all down?

        • keltcrusader

          yes, lady’s bodies can do that, but, of course, real ladies don’t get raped, don’t you know that? That happens to those others, you know who. :( 

          • Ray in VT

            Oh yeah.  I forgot about that.  It only happens to those who get a blessing.

  • 1Brett1

    The young woman, a witness for the prosecution in the Trayvon Martin murder trial, Rachel Jeantel, was treated with condescension by a defense attorney for George Zimmerman. Also, various media outlets, from professional media to social media, have viewed Ms. Jeantel in very racially derogatory terms, which has been a bit unfair. She is a very young woman from a culturally insular background. But, in a very real sense, Don West, the defense attorney who has been sparring with Ms. Jeantel, is also from a culturally insular background; his just happens to be a little broader than hers. He has also been antagonistic toward Ms. Jeantel. She speaks how she speaks; she did her best to answer his questions. 

    He did his best to try making her look stupid, and he did his best to antagonize her into saying something to discredit herself. That is what defense attorneys do with star witnesses; I can’t really fault him too much for that, although at times he seemed haughty and disrespectful. What is unforgivable and telling of a society that still has a long way to go with respect to racially charged attitudes, has been some of the Twitter and FaceBook remarks about Ms. Jeantel. 

    Also, if anyone is willing to use a kind of tit-for-tat argument in reference to Ms. Jeantel…PLEASE. It is the responsibility of us all to set a proper example of respect and dignity. Ms. Jeantel has no experience with decorum in a courtroom, nor does she seem to have much experience outside her comfort zone, so to speak. Of course, Don West could be accused of the same thing, but he has more of a responsibility to understand the limitations of his witnesses. 

    • NewtonWhale

      Whatever you thought of her as a witness, she presents one indisputable fact that is confirmed by the phone records: Martin called her and, when she called him back, was still on the phone with her at the time of the confrontation. Placing a phone call and answering a return call is not something a person would do if they were contemplating attacking someone.

      The defense’s questioning of her at such length was an attempt to distract from that conclusion.

      • 1Brett1

        Good point!

      • HonestDebate1

        She’s a piece of work.

        • jefe68

          I could say the same about you.

          • 1Brett1

            Would Gregg say the same about Rachel Jeanel if she were a young, white, inarticulate, uneducated, unworldly country girl testifying on behalf of Zimmerman? I don’t believe he would.

        • 1Brett1

          How so? Because she is uneducated? Because she is unsophisticated? Inarticulate? Because she found Don West aggressive/antagonistic and didn’t understand the context in which he was doing so? 

          She isn’t on trial. I am inclined to cut her a little slack. Some 19 year olds (because of their environment) have good awareness to themselves and the people around them, are articulate, worldly, etc. Others, irrespective of their skin color are anything but those qualities. If she had been white testifying for Zimmerman would you be saying the same things about her? I don’t believe you would be.

      • jefe68

        Not mention there were other witnesses who have stated that Zimmerman was on top of Martin, not the other way around. 

        So far it’s not looking good for Zimmerman.

    • hennorama

      1Brett1 – it seems bizarre to me that so many are criticizing this young woman regarding her speech, and her difficulty reading English words written in cursive handwriting.

      Ms. Jeantel is reportedly trilingual, speaking Haitian Creole, Spanish and English. English is reported to be her THIRD language, following Haitian Creole and Spanish.

      Her family is from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and her mother, with whom she resides, was born in Haiti. Ms. Jeantell was born in, goes to school in, and resides in Miami, Florida.

      One wonders how many of the critics are also trilingual, or even bilingual. Arguably Ms. Jeantel’s language skills are greater than more than three quarters of the US adult population, and likely greater than 90 percent of US adults. (Unfortunately, no solid statistics on bi- or tri- lingual language skills are available for the US).

      Imagine if she spoke only Haitian Creole, or only Spanish, and needed a translator in the courtroom. One suspects the public reaction would have been significantly less harsh.

  • Ed75

    A caller asked a well-known lawyer: if same-sex marriage is made legal, what will prevent incestuous or polyamorous relationships from being marriages?

    The answer was: ‘Studies have shown that those marriages have increased rates of drug use, spousal violence, and infidelity. So the state can refuse to acknowledge them.’

    They’ve done some studies on same-sex marriages, but they were too small and not well designed. There have been better studies now, but we need more, that have shown that these things are more prevalant in same-sex relationships. But they won’t be publicized.

    The other reason same-sex marriage could be ruled out is a danger to society: it promotes an activity which spreads a deadly disease. Anthony Wiener in NY now wants to allow active gay men to give blood.

    • margbi

       WHO has done studies? You don’t source your quote.
      As far as HIV, it is not limited to same sex relationships. Get up to date, man.

    • 1Brett1

      What caller? What studies? I wasn’t aware that Rev. Fred Phelps had done any studies!?!?

      So, Ed, according to you same-sex marriage increases drug abuse, spousal abuse, infidelity, and the spread of diseases…If you represent Catholics, then they must be a bigoted, ignorant, hateful bunch.

    • J__o__h__n

      That well-known anonymous lawyer.  Unidentifiied studies that you both cite and then admit are too small and “not well designed.” 

      • Ray in VT

        It was the same well known, anonymous lawyer who bravely reported those Muslims disrupting that Houston flight last week.  ;)

    • jefe68

      So much bigotry and in morning as well.

  • Ed75

    The result of these rulings and the ones that will follow will include:

    - schools will have to teach that both kinds of marriage are equally valid, and introduce both to children.
    - religions that teach the Bible on these issues will lose their religious freedom to speak.
    - our society will spend lots of time and energy rewriting many laws that are affected.
    - seeing same-sex relationships promoted in advertising and television, which doesn’t help people who are trying to live chaste lives.

    • 1Brett1

      The world after DOMA is struck down according to Ed (Scenario #1):

      Tommy: “Teacher, what is KW jelly?” 

      Teacher: “Well, Tommy, that is a lubricant.” 

      Tommy: “What is a lubricant?” 

      Teacher: “Be patient, we will learn all about how to properly use lubricants in a video this morning.”

      (Scenario #2):

      Newscaster: “Our top story tonight: a local priest was arrested without bond today for saying he thought homosexuality is a sin…details at 11!” 

      (Scenario #3):

      A man, on his way to meet his wife for lunch, noticed an advertisement with two gay men enjoying lunch together…he then called his wife: “honey, I’m not meeting you for lunch; I just saw an ad with two gay men, and I was at first repulsed but then decided I needed to find my own gay man to have sex with and then marry. Maybe then I can do drugs, beat him, spread disease, and cheat on him with you…I’ll see you soon.”

      • Ray in VT

        I don’t know, man.  Some of Obama’s jackbooted thugs showed up at my door this morning in order to force me to gay marry.

        • 1Brett1

          Damn that Obama [shaking my fist at his portrait that is on the wall over my photo of Chairman Mao]!!!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        KW jelly? What, we can’t use real commercial names now?

        Excuse me, but I’ve gotta get some Dinkins’ Donuts.

        • 1Brett1

          That was truly funny, TF! A proverbial tip-o’-the-hat for turning a typo into a decent joke! 

    • J__o__h__n

      - Both are equally valid.
      - Religions are free to speak whatever nonsense they want.  They just can’t force others to follow it.
      - Laws are changed all the time.  This shouldn’t require many resources.
      - Same sex relationships have been depicted for years.  I’d assume demographically the people trying to live chaste lives are unlikely to be affected by same sex relationships. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how does seeing the gays affect your chastity?

  • Ed75

    “I will die in bed, my successor will die in prison, and his successor will die a martyr.” Cardinal George of Chicago.

    • Ray in VT

      Oh the poor, persecuted Church.  One wonders how it soldiers on under such terrible conditions like having to operate in a society where people live with values that differ from it’s teachings.

  • Potter

    Note- Roger Cohen’s op-ed in today’s NYTimes 

    The Service of Snowden

    I hope this subject does not go away. The public needs to know.

    Terri Gross had an excellent interview with Shane Harris with some recent history of surveillance of citizens starting prior to 9/11:

    The Watchers Have Had Their Eyes on Us for Years

    • Don_B1

      Also watch last night’s (27 June 2013) Charlie Rose program, where the guests for the first segment were Guardian editors Alan Rusbridger and Janine Gibson on Edward Snowden and the NSA leaks.

      http://www.charlierose.com

      This will be repeated today on many PBS World channels, usually in the 12 -1 p.m. hour.

      • Potter

        thanks excellent!

  • alsordi

    So now after the bankers, AIPAC, the Neocons, and the M-I Complex pushed the USA into these shameful wasteful wars,  the warm and fuzzy faux-liberal media is shlepping the new buzzword …”MORAL INJURY”. 

    And now the NPR listeners are supposed to melt with sympathy.

    The fact is that the US military is VOLUNTARY. 

    These young hotshots choose not to stay in school, nor do they choose to work at Walmart or Burger King. Many become snipers or remote control video drone armchair killer, blowing apart complete strangers from one mile or six thousand miles, not completely understanding the TRUE cultural geopolitical issues, or their victim’s point of view. 

    Some soldiers just become sadistic power hungry SOBs. But many if not most soldiers manage to maintain their moral bearings, enduring a tour of duty without killing or maiming anyone.

    Veterans who are responsible for blind obedience, like any other killers, should rot in hell, just as any other rapist, serial killer or torturer.   Why should they be any different?   There are no waving flags, campaign medal laden uniforms… no excuses, when you meet your maker… whoever, whatever that may be. 

    Either you truly  “rest in peace”  or its Dante’s Inferno for eternity…regardless of what’s written six feet above on your gravestone.

    • Don_B1

      Most, if not all, members of the Armed Forces did not have an idea of what mental problems could arise from their experiences in war.

      Most of the current volunteers made that decision in the light of the 9/11 attacks and genuinely believed they were doing something to defend their country. Some had probably secondary motivations bound up in the high unemployment of the last four years and before that the desire to get help getting an education to equip them for a better job.

      But this is NOT NEW. See the story that ran on WBUR’s Here & Now just over two weeks ago:

      http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/06/13/maharidge-father-wwii

      where a man had a horrible relationship with his father because of the PTSD his father suffered during his fighting in WWII. The damage done to soldiers affects more than just the soldier.

      Certainly there are young men who volunteer for the Armed Forces to express the harsh side of all our “Id’s” and let their brutal instincts run rampant, but they are few if too many.

      Let’s all show the compassion that so many soldiers do deserve for risking all so that at least in principle, the rest of us can live our lives “normally.”

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    One:

    I have a bone to pick with NPR and Disqus. I would like to know why Disqus is saving original postings. I you have ever posted early enough in the morning you may have noticed that your comment will appear just before the full thread comes up. After you make a correction and go back to the On Point Disqus site your old unedited post will still start to load. After the site is up and running your post will show the edited version. The fact that your old post comes up is proof that Disqus is saving everything or at least the original posting. Question: does Disqus work for the NSA ?
    Spying, collecting, and God knows what is everywhere ! Stop it !

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      answer:yes

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Two:

    Is it true that Obama’s trip to Africa is costing American somewhere in the neighborhood of ONE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS !
    What is wrong with video conferencing ?
    Take all of that wasted money and build some birth controlling, condom factories in Africa! Stop, stop, stop the burgeoning population boom that is happening in the poorest of countries ! Stop, stop, stop the burgeoning population boom that is happening in all of these “up and coming” countries. How can anyone, take all of these dire threats of global warming catastrophe seriously when the people that are screaming the loudest about climate issues are flying here and there and spending recklessly. Do these people not know about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the Entropy Law? Do they not know that spending money in this fashion creates a chain of Entropy and waste ? Do they not understand the effect and impact of exponential growth? If not, they should not be in public office or in power, period !

    • Don_B1

      I will admit to not having checked for this trip explicitly, but remember the trip a couple years ago where a similar “(false) story” was wildly trumpeted by the rightwing haters? I suspect that this is just a repeat of that stupidity.

    • Steve__T

       I found this for you

      The first question, pushed often by Breitbart, Fox etal, came from
      Andrea Mitchell: “What do you think the costs are, do you have any
      estimates of the trip, and why do you think the costs are well
      justified,” she asked.  That’s a fun one when you consider that
      President Obama’s trip is official travel, not a vacation.  Some right wingers come down with a sudden case of amnesia when the topic of George W. Bush’s 1,000 days of vacation pop up.  Flying back and fourth to Crawford, Texas wasn’t a waste of money?

      • Wm_James_from_Missouri

        I said and will say the same type of things about the trips had by others.

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Three:

    Has the Senate gone mad ? Do THEY not understand the effects of exponential population growth? ! Do they not know that for more than 40 years the middle class has been taking hit after economic hit? Do they not understand that ever increasing population will lead to ever faster top soil erosion, deforestation, congestion, unemployment, decaying living standards, pollution, unfathomable burdens for the educational system, more poverty, more crime, more justification for spying by organizations like the NSA, more strife, less domestic tranquility and more problems than We The People are capable of handling ? I am seeing DISEASE, that is to say, DIS EASE, with good sense thinking everywhere !

    • William

       I think it is a terrible blow for blacks but they have become “last year’s Christmas present” to the elite political class in Washington DC.

       Do you think Rubio has become the “Obama” for the Republican Party? Or at least, lie like Obama to get into office, and then show his true nature on issues like illegal immigration?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      of course they do that’s why they are plotting to kill us all off

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    Four:

    Continuing question three from a different viewpoint.

    Do the people that rule us not understand that technology will continue to eliminate jobs.

    Samples: Driverless cars are coming soon, are they not ? Common sense should tell you that driverless trucks aren’t too far off. There are about ONE MILLION TRUCKERS in the US. In the not too distant future there will be (about) ONE MLLION LESS JOBS! This is JUST ONE type of employment!

    Do you think that your job is safe? Well, here is another example, a computer program that will write books !

    http://www.business-opportunities.biz/2013/06/16/man-creates-system-to-automatically-write-hundreds-of-thousands-of-books/?awt_l=Cdhgo&awt_m=JBLDB5H2mLpdR8

     
    Yes, that is right! Your precious special little career that you spent so much education money on to make you impervious to the economic catastrophes that have become the realities of so many will soon become your reality. You CAN and WILL be replaced! Period ! Our leaders are uncaring , non perceptive and reckless to a fault. Time to tell them so.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      have you read “player piano”? I also think human labor is becoming obsolete. what we need is a robot that can replace a politician. Romney was version 1.0 I think

    • Don_B1

      First a caveat on the trucking industry: as fuel costs increase the efficiency of railroads in fuel costs may overcome their slower delivery times because of less direct routes, etc. unless the country makes a rail building effort.

      But more in general, consider the hints for future economies found in this post by Paul Krugman:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/opinion/krugman-sympathy-for-the-luddites.html?smid=tw-NytimesKrugman&seid=auto

      This is a deeper problem than can be explored just by extrapolating from details of the past economies. New forms of exchange between people of goods and services are likely to occur, hopefully at least involving some aspects of the nature of the goods. By that I mean the exchange of electrons in the use of entertainment games and educational tools rather than the more exploitive goods manufactured from new material mined or otherwise destructively extracted from the environment.

  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    This one is just FYI.
    I was looking through one of my books this evening, a book on statistics for business and economics and I stumbled upon a few sentences I thought I would share with you.

    It says:
    ‘Vilfredo Pareto ( 1843-1923), discovered that approximately 80% of the wealth of a country lies with approximately 20% of the people. … These example illustrate the idea of “ the vital few and the trivial many”, the Pareto Principal… . “
    It goes on to say:
    “ Knowledge of the “vital few” problems permits management to set priorities and focus their problem solving efforts”.

    Oh, the things we teach our children !

    • northeaster17

      About 10 or 12 years ago Jack Welch from GE made big bucks with his 80-20 theory concerning worker productivity and it’s costs to the company. For a while it was the rage as various management circles diligently searched out the 20% in order to fix the system. Funny how that seems to have quieted down.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        My own thought is that all the Kewl Kidz who fluffed Rockstar Jack Welch can’t stop praising him now.

        The financial industrial complex can’t stop believing in his superherodom, or he’ll (figuratively) die, and they’ll all be caught out with glossy magazine articles that’ll embarrass them from the past.

  • donniethebrasco

    I won’t rest until everyone is getting food stamps.

    No picture IDs or no Social Security numbers required.

    How can businesses afford to hire people without their employees collecting food stamps?

  • donniethebrasco

    Kermit Gosnell is a hero.

    • Don_B1

      There has always been a type of person who admires criminals; now we know what type you are.

  • Don_B1

    A Supreme Court case resolved in favor of rent-seeking wealth that slipped through under the radar due to the three “big cases” with decisions announced this week.

    This one was written by Justice Samuel Alito, who again demonstrated his bias toward the wealthy in the case Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/opinion/a-legal-blow-to-sustainable-development.html

    which will make the decision process for allowing development in areas where there are environmental concerns more fraught with difficulty in coming to a reasonable decision, and thus either no reasonable development will be allowed or unreasonable development will go forward and less often some reasonable compromise between a developer’s greed and the community interest will not be even searched for.

  • donniethebrasco

    The SCOTUS is radical right wingers.  They didn’t stop laws against gay marriage from going into effect.

    That is what all of those radical right wingers want.

  • donniethebrasco

    #FreeJahar

  • donniethebrasco

    Get ready for $10/gallon gasoline.

    If Obama is smart, he will change to liters.  It will only be $2.30/liter of gas.

    Low information voters will believe that gas went down from $3.75 to $2.30.

  • donniethebrasco

    Carbon is the basis of life.  It is not pollution.

    • NewtonWhale

      Carbon is a building block of life. That does not mean that carbon in various compounds and quantities is not harmful. If you breathed in carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide in sufficient quantities you would die.

      “Carbon dioxide is a waste gas produced by fossil fuel combustion, so can be classified as man-made waste. One can also make the case that carbon dioxide is contaminating the environment, since increased CO2 from burning fossil fuels has already harmed sea life. Carbon dioxide, when dissolved in sea water, is deadly to shell-building microorganisms that form an important part of the food chain in some cold ocean regions. The extra CO2 lowers the pH and make the water too acidic for these organisms to build their shells. As I reported in my blog on Acidifying the Oceans, the observed increase in acidity of 0.1 pH units during the past century due to fossil fuel burning, and expected continued acidification in the coming decades, could cause a massive die off of marine life and collapse of the food chain in these ocean areas. Based on these arguments, the fossil fuel industry’s slogan, “Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life!” could just as truthfully be phrased, “Carbon dioxide. We call it pollution, and we call it death.” One need only look at our sister planet, Venus, to see that too much “life” can be a bad thing. There, an atmosphere of 96% carbon dioxide has created a hellish greenhouse effect. The temperatures of 860 F at the surface are hot enough to melt lead. There’s not too much life there!”

      http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/cei.asp

      • jefe68

        You’re wasting your time with this guy.
        He’s a lower form of carbon.

    • northeaster17

      Hopefully you don’t follow that line of logic with other elements. Such as H2O. Gotta have it. Too much, your a goner.

      • donniethebrasco

        Tax water!
        Tax air!
        Tax capitalism out of existence!

      • StilllHere

        Not enough and you’re gonna die …

    • nj_v2

      ^ Continues to boldly blur the distinction between ignorance and stupidity.

  • donniethebrasco

    It is easy for low information reporters to go after Paula Deen.

  • HonestDebate1

    How does someone like Rachel Jeantel get to be 19 and not know how to read or speak proper English? Why is it acceptable for her community to use terms like “creepy-ass cracker”? How can she believe it’s not racially charged unless racially charged language is the norm in her world? I feel for her because she has been through a traumatic event, she didn’t ask for this. But it is what it is. I have already seen articles making excuses for her. Here’s one:

    http://globalgrind.com/news/what-white-people-dont-understand-about-rachel-jeantel-trayvon-martin-blog

    IMHO it’s nothing but racism cloaked in compassion. I am amazed at how many take the view that she shouldn’t be expected to know how to read cursive, after all she’s only a black person. Or, she doesn’t know any better than to torture the English language with ebonics, after all she’s only a black person. Or, if she contradicts herself and is disrespectful we should not be surprised, after all she’s only a black person. Or, if she has pre-conceived notions about whites and uses racist terms then that’s cool, after all she’s only a black person.

    I don’t know if she has a job but she seems woefully ill-prepared for life. To coin a GWB phrase, it’s the soft bigotry of low expectations. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its hard to get a job when you lie about your age and claim to be 16

    • toc1234

      fyi – Robin Young and guest will be informing her listeners on Here and Now that this girl is actually speaking a “valuable” African-American dialect.  what a joke.  and a bigger joke is that academics will parlay this joke into a new department…

    • Ray in VT

      You must have a pretty low opinion of minorities.  While you’re on your speech rant, can you work on getting people like Mitch McConnell to speak some proper English?  I almost need subtitles to understand what he says.

      • HonestDebate1

        I expect the same from everybody and don’t make excuses for them.

        • jefe68

          That’s not what you are posting or doing.
          Again, you do not seem to understand the idea of subtext in language and how it pertains to subjects such as race, gender and difference.

          • HonestDebate1

            She may have good reasons to be incoherent, racist, illiterate and rude but being black isn’t one of them.

        • Ray in VT

          So you’re just judging this girl by the content of their character, and you judge her to be deficient for speaking in a dialect, so should I not consider anyone who speaks with a drawl to be intellectually or culturally inferior in the interest of fairness?

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m not talking about a drawl or dialect. One can reveal eloquence or ignorance with a drawl but you know that.  I’m talking about improper english and an inability to read. She’s 19, how does that happen? I’m talking about tweets full or racial terms including the big “n”… over and over. I’m talking about being disrespectful in a court of law. I’m talking about the notion “creepy-ass cracker” is just the way you talk about people whose skin is a different color. I’m talking about incoherent contradictions. I’m talking about communities not willing to hold their children to high standards and blaming it on race.

            And you are exactly right, I am judging her by the content of her character.

          • Ray in VT

            Funny, I don’t see a difference between a southern dialect and an “urban” dialect, and I hear plenty of improper English and very little eloquence out of those with the former.  I think that she, like Paula Deen, is entitled to use whatever term she wants, and there is a real difference between the n word as used within the African-American community and by those on the outside using it against someone from that community.  She is entitled to use whatever term she likes to describe someone tailing her friend.  Is that supposed to change the fact the Zimmerman shot the kid dead in the street?  It’s a good thing that all of those kids from poor communities have exactly the same shot as the kids from more prosperous one, because we’re all islands, and outside circumstances don’t affect us.  If we fail, then it’s totally our own faults, unless some dude shoots you while you’re trying to get Skittles.

          • HonestDebate1

            Urban dialect my ass. And why do you hate Southerners so much? Why do you lump them all into one block? It matters what they say, it matters how well they can express themselves, it matters how they conduct themselves. I don’t care who talks funny.

            You sure are making a lot of assumptions about that night and they are all based on hate.

          • Ray in VT

            I is what I is.  It’s a good thing that I have you here to tell me what I feel and how I think.  I’m just making some observations based upon my experiences.

          • HonestDebate1

            I played the Pop Ferguson Blues Festival a few weeks ago. The promotor (Pop’s son Clyde) needed a keyboard player for a singer he was promoting named Rosa Russ. He’s a fishing buddy so I did it on short notice. We’ve since done a duo gig as well. I wish you could have heard all the Southern drawls in downtown Lenoir. There wasn’t a racist in the lot.

          • Ray in VT

            Did you take the time to look into the eyes of each and everyone there and judge the content of their character?

          • HonestDebate1

            No but I didn’t judge a single one by the color of their skin or their Southern dialect.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s a good thing that I don’t either, unless you know something about me that I don’t.

            Then upon what basis did you judge the content of their character to be great?  You have said that discrimination is good (or something), so why didn’t you try to discriminate against any of them?

          • Ray in VT

            I thought that you’ve said that discrimination is good?  Why not do it with that crowd?

          • HonestDebate1

            Of course discrimination is good. One must take stock of people in life but you can’t tell anything about the content of character by the color of skin. Maybe you are more suspicious of black guys in hoodies but not me.

          • 1Brett1

            Would Gregg be saying the same things about Rachel Jeanel if she were an unsophisticated, inarticulate, unworldly, white, country girl testifying on behalf of Zimmerman? I don’t believe so. 

          • Ray in VT

            One would hope that he would.  Did you check out any of the lovely comments about Ms. Jeanel?  I think that it’s pretty terrible the treatment she has been getting, but I am wondering if a bit of the defense’s “I can’t understand you” approach is a part of their strategy to undermine her as a witness for the prosecution.

          • 1Brett1

            For the most part, I didn’t find much fault with the defense lawyer (although he was a bit too antagonistic at times). I did read some of the comments about Ms. Jeanel from social media…some of it was straight up racist; some of it was the typical, asinine, anonymous commentary one expects, unfortunately, from the interwebzzz that are usually insensitive and make facile assessments lacking any insight. The ones that were sensitive and sympathetic toward her were in the minority. 

          • Ray in VT

            The comments section does bring out the worst in a lot of people, doesn’t it?  Did you see that whole deal about the Cheerios ad on youtube?  It makes one wonder sometimes.

          • HonestDebate1

            Well you wrote, “I hear plenty of improper English and very little eloquence out of those with the former.” It seemed you were judging based on dialect since you didn’t quote anyone. Sorry if I misread you.

            I didn’t judge the content of everyone’s character because I didn’t meet them all. I’m saying the fact they were in the South with drawls did not reveal squat. This day there was a lot of love in the air.

          • Ray in VT

            It was a generalization.  I have a co-worker who is from New Orleans, and he has a significant accent, but I didn’t prejudge him, as I try not to do that sort of thing.  I’m just relating my general experience.  I’ve also had a number friends who have moved north in order to get away from what they describe as bigotry, ignorance and the rest in places like eastern Tennessee, Texas and Georgia.

          • 1Brett1

            Or we could just judge people (like Gregg) by the content of the racist things they say and not what they say afterwards they meant. He doesn’t think that’s fair, though. 

          • Ray in VT

            For kicks I took a look at some of the comments on the story about her testimony on a certain news website, and boy was it pretty much exactly what I expected.

    • Renee Engine-Bangger

       
      @HonestDebate1: “How does someone like Rachel Jeantel get to be 19 and not know how to read or speak proper English?”

      How does someone get to be whatever age you are and make such ignorant and ill-informed comments? Or is it that you are just a troll?

      • HonestDebate1

        That wasn’t an answer, it was a question. You first.

        • jefe68

          No, it was an answer. You just do not have the ability to parse what’s being stated here. Or, you think you are being clever.

          You’re not.

          • HonestDebate1

            It was actually two questions, no answer.

      • Don_B1

        Since HonestDebate (a.k.a. Gregg, a.k.a. Gregg Smith) won’t tell you except if you interpret his snark correctly, he is a troll of long standing.

        • Renee Engine-Bangger

           Thanks for the confirmation. I see there are a few other lonely trolls here too.

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m a harmless lovable fuzzball just looking for some simple answers.

      • 1Brett1

        I can’t say for sure, but he lives in rural North Carolina, is a 50-something, white landowner (over 100 acres) and has lived a life insulated from diversity. This may be at least one explanation…but as Don says, he’s also a troll, and he’s a neocon just trying to stir people up who are liberal.

    • jefe68

      I have low expectations of you, I do admit to being a bigot in terms of viewing intolerant and ignorant fools.

    • 1Brett1

      “How does someone like Rachel Jeantel get to be 19 and not know how to read or speak proper English?”

      You said in a comment just below that her entire unpreparedness was the “result of policies that propagate dependency.” 

      There are a lot of white kids who are ignorant, who have been “let down by [their] family and [their] community because [the families and communities] did not hold them to a high standard.” (Another quote of yours but in your quote you were referring to black people.)

      Yet you are using Rachel Jeantel to further your agenda that not only is she the fault of liberal policies but because she is black there is something uniquely deficient about why she seems so delayed and unprepared for adulthood…I don’t think I’ve ever heard you malign rural white communities, for example, in this way. 

      For someone who is “colorblind” you sure do take issues of race and inject even more of a racial mentality into them that seems biased, bigoted, and one-sided. 

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – the link you described as one of the “articles making excuses for her” (Ms. Jeantel) is more accurately described as an opinion piece. It is not a news story. This is easily seen in the number of times the writer referred to herself – nine, according to a cursory count.

      Just to be clear – do you believe that you know the entirety of Ms. Jeantel’s background and abilities sufficiently so that you can judge her, or are you simply parroting something you read on WashingtonTimes.com, or elsewhere?

      For example, do you know whether or not Ms. Jeantel is dyslexic? Difficulty with reading and handwriting are part of the symptoms list for dyslexia|aixelsyd. (a nod to nj_v2)

      This young woman is not on trial, yet she is being judged. This is bizarre.

      Just out of curiosity, and to just to be clear, Mr. Smith, exactly how many languages do you speak fluently ? Exactly how many languages can you read, whether in print or in cursive handwriting, or both?

      Did you know that Ms. Jeantel is reportedly trilingual, speaking Haitian Kreyol (Creole), Spanish and English? English is her THIRD language, sir. Her family is from Haiti and the Dominican Republic, and her mother, with whom she resides, was born in Haiti. Ms. Jeantell was
      born in, goes to school in, and resides in Miami, Florida.

      You also wrote “Note for the cognitively impaired: the words above in italics [“after all she's only a black person”] represent the view of liberals.”

      On what basis do you make this statement, sir?

      Please demonstrate your superior cognitive ability, and provide some evidence to back up your claim.

      Otherwise, please STFU (Stick To Foaling Ungulates).

  • Rick Evans

    I’ll be fascinated with Obama’s justification for visiting Tanzania over Kenya. Yes I know about the corrupt, human rights violating newly elected Kenyan gov’t. OTOH, the Tanzanian officials are implicated in a ivory smuggling, elephant slaughtering partnership with China.

    • brettearle

      If Presidents and their entourage(s) examined the violations and indiscretions, of all countries, on any `whirlwind’ tours the President might make–in any part of the world–then Air Force 1 would lay dormant in a hangar for some time to come.

  • Coastghost

    Commander-in-Chief Obama balks at getting his fingernails untidy calling the leaders of Russia and China over the fate of Edward Snowden? National security is MORE Obama’s job than anyone else’s in the whole stinking Federal government: but Obama must have time to play popinjay peace laureate to sub-Saharan Africa (and if Mandela dies today, Obama will be right on hand to lead the mourning).
    Fire Obama for dereliction of duty. Seriously. Until Snowden is lawfully apprehended for his crimes, the triumvirate Obama, Kerry, and Holder is legally and politically responsible for any and every leak that the rat Snowden blurts out.

    • HonestDebate1

      On one hand this administration (John Kerry) is saying Snowden actions mean, “people will die”. And now Obama reduces him to merely a “29 year old hacker”. That’s rich. 

      Obama has no standing weigh China and Russia. They are not worried in the least about any ramifications. Putin is loving it.

      Putin hunts whales with a crossbow Obama rides bikes.

      http://i.huffpost.com/gen/196011/PUTIN-CROSSBOW-BOAT-THREE.jpg

      http://www.thedailyrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/600b09201e1.jpg

      • jefe68

        So in your world our presidents should go back to big game hunting, ala Teddy Roosevelt. 

        And you want people to take you seriously?  

        • nj_v2

          Greggg must have his full clown suit on today.

          • jefe68

            While driving around looking for free WIFI. What an image…

          • HonestDebate1

            I set up a tent behind the library. They’re not on to me… yet… gotta go.

          • HonestDebate1

            Complete with the big shoes, rubber nose and brutal truth.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Did Obama sound Presidential in his response to questions about Snowden?  No.

          • jefe68

            That’s a valid point. But equating riding a bike to hunting whales with a crossbow is hardly an intelligent way to make it.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Now Jefe, you can’t fight the fact that there’s nothing more ManlyMan than a Republican president doing anything.

            Annneeeeething, from holding hands with a man, to bowing to a foreign leader.

          • HonestDebate1

            Is Putin a Republican? Who knew? But I agree bowing and men holding hands is not manly.

          • Steve__T

             Yea he should have been cuttin brush and choppin wood and while he’s in Africa he should go on a Safari.

          • HonestDebate1

            He should teach his children about the slave trade which still exists in parts of Africa.

          • HonestDebate1
          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – you seems to have a serious Putin fetish.

            Does your significant other know?

          • StilllHere

            He never has.

        • HonestDebate1

          I just think he should command respect and  not be the laughing stock of world leaders, that’s all.

          • StilllHere

            Too high a bar for this guy.

          • hennorama

            -Pres. Bush II, while in Spain, “It is a great honor to travel to Spain and visit the King and also Prime Minister Anzar. But I have to practice the very pretty language, and unless I practice I am going to destroy this language”. (He had in fact mispronounced the name of the Prime Minister, José María Aznar. calling him ansar, a Spanish word for “goose”.)

            -Pres. Bush II, while in China, “tried to make a quick exit from a news conference in Beijing … – only to find himself thwarted by locked doors.” Pres. Bush II said “I was trying to escape. Obviously, it didn’t work.”

            Prior to his attempted escape, Shrubya was involved in this exchange with the press:

            “Respectfully, sir – you know we’re always respectful in your statement this morning with President Hu, you seemed a little off your game, you seemed to hurry through your statement. There was a lack of enthusiasm. Was something bothering you?”

            “The president answered: “Have you ever heard of jet lag? Well, good. That answers your question.”

            “The reporter asked for a follow-up question but the president then thanked the attending journalists and said “No you may not” as he walked away.

            “He [Bush II] strode from the lectern to the door, trying both handles and then breaking into a laugh.

            “An aide escorted him to the correct exit and on to dinner at the Great Hall of the People.”

            See:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4454738.stm

            -Pres. Bush II’s cringe-worthy “hands-on diplomacy” with German Chancellor Angela Merkel was also notable. Poor Merkel recoiled from GeeDub’s touch, which one can see here:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801550.html

            And here, too:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/07/17/228190/-President-Bush-Strikes-From-Behind-PHOTOS-and-VIDEO

            Bush’s clueless and blank “Wha? Did I do something wrong?” expression as Merkel raised her arms to fend him off is priceless.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bush?! Bush had a working relationship with Russia and China. Merkel and Bush got along fine. Obama tried to get Merkel to raise taxes and borrow more and she told him to pound sand. Obama is an embarrassment, hell he was just calling UK’s finance minister Jeffery Osbourne they other day.  

        • 1Brett1

          Jefe, you miss WhorishDebate1′s point: he love, love, loves Putin and his manly pursuits…Not to mention Putin’s shirtless, bare-chested photos (I think he said he has several pinned up around in his shack in the woods). His comment is not so much a put down of Obama but a continued messianic-like worship of Putin’s manliness.

          • jefe68

            I know, Putin is way to sexy for his shirt!
            He’s a mans man. He should be on Madmen and do deodorant and shaving commercials while he’s killing whales with a crossbow while driving a tank.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39YUXIKrOFk

          • jefe68

            Speaking of manly pursuits, 
            the Japanese Imperial Army invaded a large part of French Indochina using bikes in WW2.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Boehner: “There’s no consensus of Republicans and Democrats to (pass the immigration reform bill in the House.)”

    The same guy who’s superduper repealed the Affordable Care Act, what, five hundred times in the House is now pissing and moaning that he can’t get Dems to vote for it?

    Has there ever been a Speaker worse at the job than John Boehner?

  • HonestDebate1

    The loss of Trayvon Martin is obviously the central tragedy here but there are also other issues that are very sad. The knee-jerk effort to reduce the entire episode to a prism of race was despicable. 

    The liberal leaps in logic were astonishing. Zimmerman is white and in the South so he’s a racist. Being a racist means he was a murderous stalking racist like the rest of the South. Therefore he’s guilty and we have an epidemic of racism.

    Another sad aspect is the way the elevation of this case overshadowed the gang violence in our inner cities that results in the slaying of Trayvons everyday but remains in the shadows of racist complacency.

    • brettearle

      None of us know what actually happened.

      But I don’t think that, based on the dispatcher transcript, you can fully discount an element of pre-conceived racial  or, at least, cultural bias, going on, before Zimmerman began his pursuit.

      [Thanks for your Syrian comments.  I will have a very brief rebuttal, soon.]

      • HonestDebate1

        I agree Brettearle, but I object to the immediate assumption that it was all about a murderous stalking racist looking for kicks. It’s the last thing I would suspect.

        I’ll keep checking back to the old board and wanted to flesh out my thoughts a little more to see if we agree on some things I suspect we do. But it’s hard to get back and actually do it. Thanks for the reminder.

        • Steve__T

           ” It’s the last thing I would suspect.”
          I wonder why, actually I don’t.  I know why and so does everyone else who has read your post.

        • donniethebrasco

           If George Zimmerman were looking to kill African American, he wouldn’t have killed such a cute little boy and wouldn’t have let him kick his ass.

      • John_in_Amherst

          Zimmerman’s past history of calling in reports about blacks in the neighborhood was heard by the judge, but I am not sure if it was permitted to be entered as evidence

      • 1Brett1

        Hate crimes over race aren’t on trial (in the court of public opinion race might be on trial, it is about 50/50 anyway in that realm). What is on trial, actual trial, in a court of law, is Zimmerman for shooting Martin. 

        He didn’t have to pursue him; in fact, he disregarded the dispatcher to do so. I am focused on those kinds of moments in the tragedy. I don’t feel Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin, not because I think he might be a racist but because he simply involved himself in an unwarranted and unlawful way. Vigilantism can become a serious crime in some cases–this, to me, is most likely one of those cases.  

        Yes, we don’t know what happened, but people speculate on motive, etc., and that is okay, generally. He might very well have pursued Martin because he was black. He might have pursued Martin simply because he’s a vigilante asshole with a gun. He did, however, pursue Martin when told by law enforcement not to. 

        I believe that those (not you) who are exaggerating the persecution of whites in many other circumstances and are pointing a finger at this situation as just another example of wrongfully maligning white people, are using some opinions people have (who think  Zimmerman’s killing of Martin had some racial underpinnings) in an opportunistic way and have an agenda. While some who say the opposite may very well have an agenda too, it isn’t all that unreasonable for people to claim Zimmerman might very well have acted in a racist manner.

         

            

        • brettearle

          The case is disquieting, with a surfeit of subjective innuendo.

          I like the way you describe, a number of the issues, above.

          While I can’t prove who was more at fault, I am suspicious of Zimmerman’s behavior and actions–more than I am of Martin’s.

          The vigilantism is very troubling–and I suspect that it was emboldened by either the color of Martin’s skin or by a subjective cultural interpretation, by Zimmerman, of Martin’s reason for simply being in a certain location.

          But probably both.

          What is less clear to me–apart from the Stand-Your-Ground matter–is whether Zimmerman justifiably felt as if his life was being threatened.

          Did Zimmerman lull Martin into an aggressor position, so that he could find an excuse to use the gun?

          Was Zimmerman incapable of overpowering Martin?

          Did Zimmerman give Martin a chance to explain himself?

          Did Martin give himself a chance to explain himself to Zimmerman [not that he HAD to explain himself to anyone; I mean, simply, to defuse the situation].

          There may be evidence as to whether Zimmerman drew his gun.  I am not up on that aspect of the case.

          Nor am I up on any testimony that backs up Zimmerman’s or Martin’s respective injuries.

          I am often skeptical–perhaps more than I should be–about bruises, positions of wounds, blood splatter….and their implications, according to forensic evidence and the medical examiner’s analysis.

          Etc., Etc.

          What I find troubling, too, is the knee-jerk reaction of the African-American community and the Liberal activist protest movement–both of whom I consider to be my brethren–and their inability to see the difference between Zimmerman’s racial/cultural biases and his right to self-defense.

          There, COULD BE, a difference.  Not necessarily that there IS a difference.

          But in my view, the Liberal and African-American communities are operating with too much of a knee-jerk reverse bias.

          In my view, that does nothing but to hurt our own cause, in this matter–now, for this case; and, in the future, for others.

          • 1Brett1

            “What is less clear to me…is whether Zimmerman justifiably felt as if his life was being threatened.” 

            Yes, that part is not clear; however, Zimmerman did put himself in danger (probably because he felt his gun would be the equalizer, but I can’t say) in the antecedent part of the chain of events. But, did he feel in danger when he was face to face with Martin? If he did feel in danger, how much of that was rational? How much of that was due to  “either the color of Martin’s skin or by a subjective cultural interpretation, by Zimmerman, of Martin’s reason for simply being in a certain location.”? As you eloquently stated in your reply to me. 

            I also find your questioning about certain factions of the African-American and liberal communities to be fair, as I don’t see you as doing anything other than trying to see all sides. I would have preferred people stick to the events of the case itself, because, ultimately, it doesn’t matter what Zimmerman’s motive might have been. That part can’t be proven anyway. I don’t believe he acted in a premeditated way; I feel as though he thought he was just going to scare and intimidate Martin. Martin  didn’t cower and Zimmerman got scared. Why did he get scared? Who knows. Zimmerman isn’t up for first degree murder, nor has he been accused of a hate crime. I am NOT savvy enough to know all of the variables with all parameters of second degree murder to say for sure if what I describe is second degree murder. 

          • brettearle

            One thing for sure is that the provocation for thought is somewhat remarkable, vis a vis our willingness to point out the variables and potential nuances.

            As I consider our exchanges, above, I am suddenly inclined to take a harder line against Zimmerman……

            ……primarily, because a man with a gun behaves and thinks differently than a man without one.

            This mentality includes (but is not limited to, of course) the apparent notion that those who carry believe that others carry much MORE than these others actually do.

            Can you ponder that notion, relative to that Night–or was that already included in your primary thinking? 

      • jefe68

        The bottom line, if Mr. Zimmerman had not been armed, or if he had left well enough alone, Martin would still be alive and Zimmerman would not be on trial. In my view he’s on trial because of his actions. He was the agressor, not Martin.

    • jefe68

      And yet it’s you who keep going on about race. Making racially charged comments and then doing so over and over again.

      • HonestDebate1

        What on earth for?

        • jefe68

          Good question. Why are you posting all this BS?

          • HonestDebate1

            Originally your comment said “flagged”.

          • jefe68

            I flagged your comment.
            Why? Because they deserve to be.

          • J__o__h__n

            Don’t flag comments.  I hate when they are censored.

          • jefe68

            It takes a lot for me to so. The moderators at BUR don’t seem to do anything with the flags unless the comments are over the top.

          • StilllHere

            He’s afraid of honest debate in all senses.

          • jefe68

            Hardly.

            The troll is back.

          • jefe68

            Nasty?
            I could oblige your puerile 
            sensibilities.

          • HonestDebate1

            I just don’t understand what you find offensive but do what you gotta do.

          • jefe68

            That’s just it.
            You don’t understand how some of your loaded comments about race, and how you use language in context to race can be seen as offensive.

          • HonestDebate1

            So censor me? It was a harmless comment. What’s wrong with you?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Actually the media created a new category for Zimmerman: “white Hispanic”.  Strange.

      • jefe68

        I guess you’ve never seen or heard how color differences and ethnicity are played out in Guatemala.

        • OnPointComments

          You are naïve if you believe the media came up with “white hispanic” because of a desire to educate the public on color differences and ethnicity.  The term “White hispanic” made the story more sensational, and reinforced the media’s narrative that the incident was racial.

          • jefe68

            Well now, lets try and reverse the real story here. That a young unarmed man was shot by a guy who was looking for trouble, found it, and was told by the police not to pursue. 

            You don’t fool me.

    • John_in_Amherst

       Zimmerman’s vigilante wackiness alone is reprehensible, especially in light of the fact that he was instructed by the police NOT to confront Martin, but elected to go it alone, because he had a gun. 
      However, there IS the documented history of his reporting people he deemed suspicious to the police (all or most of whom were black).  There are reports that he got along OK with black neighbors, but it seems that was mostly during the daylight hours…. Tolerant by day, racist at night…. hardly the first case of peoples’ worst tendencies being trotted out under cover of darkness. 

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        That idea of “getting along with people of another race which he personally knew” is a bit telling.

        Part of me would like armed “SABW” (self-appointed block-watchers” to take the psychological exams that armed security guards (let alone police officers) are subjected to.

    • Don_B1

      The things that indicate possible racism in the Zimmerman-Martin case are contained in Zimmerman’s comments to the 911 Operator when he called to report a “potential” intruder.

      Oh, but that is what you want to distract people from thinking about.

      That and the fact that the initial protests were against the police for not properly investigating the case and cavalierly dismissing the possibility of charging Zimmerman with some level of murder or other charge.

      But you are up to your usual stunt of trying to muddle the issue under discussion.

      • HonestDebate1

        Are you talking about the doctored NBC tape that made it sound liked Zimmerman said “he’s up to no good, he looks black”? 

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – I disagree with your premise that there was a “knee-jerk effort to reduce the entire episode to a prism of race…”.

      The Zimmerman/Martin case first became controversial due to the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was released without charges after killing Mr. Martin. Zimmerman claimed self-defense, which brought the Florida “stand your ground” law to national attention, and things mushroomed from there.

      One can understand that some may perceive Zimmerman initially being released without charge after about five hours as controversial, almost regardless of the circumstances involved.

      Later media reports indicated some potential police misconduct, and the circus grew from there.

  • OnpointListener

    The Republicans in the Senate were willing to pass the immigration reform bill ONLY because it is: (1) a multi-billion dollar give away to the military-industrial complex, and (2) enables Silicon Valley to import cheap technical labor. 

    • John_in_Amherst

       That plus the fact that they are less vulnerable to attacks from the right than their brothers in the House.  The GOP’s extensive gerrymandering over the past 3 decades has left us with a system that rewards only extremism on both sides in the House, and a resultant crippling of the legislative branch.  The GOP aspiration of shrinking government to the point of being able to “drown government in a bathtub” is a lot easier if the government is crippled. 

  • John_in_Amherst

    What does the House GOP want vis-a-vis immigration reform?  They want to do ANYTHING that impedes Obama governing the country, period.  They have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to put the best interests of the country aside to deny Obama any victories, even minor compromise victories. Their intransigence borders on treason (“treason: a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state”.)

    • Don_B1

      And the rabid radicals among them as well as those just a bit more thoughtful, think that they will be primaried if they do not continue to throw red meat to the real xenophobes in their party who will not reelect them if they don’t.

      Any thoughtful Republican must be seeing the worth of the phrase, “Be careful what you wish for.”

  • NewtonWhale

    Kudos to OnPoint for devoting an hour his week to Obama’s climate speech.

    The rest of the (corporate) media should be ashamed of itself. And the worst offender was the supposedly liberal MSNBC:

    “On Tuesday, President Obama rolled out a plan to cap carbon emissions at existing power plants, improve efficiency standards on automobiles, double the amount of electricity produced with renewables, and lead a global movement to address climate change. But the media virtually ignored it.All of the three major news networks spent mere minutes on the speech — which ran in total 49 minutes.While the lack of coverage is shocking enough, perhaps the most astounding media failure of the day was by FOX News, who broke from Obama’s climate speech to interview climate denier Chris Horner. Horner works for the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is largely funded by the oil money, including the Koch Brothers and Exxon-Mobil.Of course, a media blackout on climate issues is nothing new. Even when outlets cover the devastating and very real affects of a changing climate, they are reluctant to mention “climate change” by name. Recently, the midwest experienced historic flooding, but only 3 percent of coverage used the term. When hurricane Sandy tore its way through New York, literally no newspapers mentioned a climate connection. Perhaps this comes from the shady, and undisclosed, connection between major news outlets and dirty energy interests.”

    • donniethebrasco

       Obama’s plan had nothing tangible.

      The news outlets are waiting for $10 gas.

      • NewtonWhale

        President Obama used his executive authority to direct the EPA to limit the amount of global warming pollutants that fossil fuel plants can pour into the atmosphere. That’s tangible.

        You may not approve, but to say the speech “had nothing tangible” is either ignorance or willful misrepresentation.

        So which is it? 

        http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/52312142/#52312142

    • StilllHere

      It was a pure example of recycling of pointless platitudes.

      • jefe68

        Funny that’s what you do every time you post.

    • Don_B1

      You are correct as far as I can determine about MSNBC; when you mentioned the lack of coverage there, I was surprised because I have seen Chris Hayes promote it strongly as one of his most important issues. He did have two segments, where the main points were covered — with Christine Todd Whitman claiming that the tar sands will be burned with or without Keystone XL — on his Tuesday program (7:20 and 8:34 for less than 16 minutes total). I can’t find a blog post on the subject from his show.

      Apparently the Voting Rights decision by the Supreme Court dominated the coverage that day and the Marriage Equality decisions on the next day.

      But it is really impossibly difficult to go back and see all the coverage that MSNBC has provided with their horrible website design, split between video and blog posts and the video is not searchable to my knowledge.

  • M S

    Jack Beatty is funny. The Republicans have to get right with the illegals. What about the illegals getting right with us?

    • J__o__h__n

      Romney had some mowing one of his lawns.

      • M S

        Romney? Most of the illegals in NYC are working for elitist Democrats on the UWS and Park Slope. In fact, most illegal labor benefit limousine liberals like Jack and Tom.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Cite, please. And unless Jack’s last name is Armour and Tom’s last name is Smithfield, there are a lot of disposable laborers working the fields and slaughterhouses you may have not taken into account.

          • Don_B1

            Forget M S today; his snark gun is out.

        • hennorama

          Prove. It.

          • M S

            Have you ever lived here or spent a length of time in New York? If so, you wouldn’t be asking such a ridiculous question. You only have to start with the nannies and housekeepers; it’s an open secret. Everyone knows that the illegals provide cheap labor to the West Coast and East Coast liberal elites. Lawn care in the Hamptons, nannies on the UWS, housekeepers in Greenwich. And you should check out their country clubs…lol. To be fair, it’s not all liberals, their are some phony Republicans that turn a blind eye as well, but it’s mostly those liberals who make enough to just barely afford a nanny with their brownstone mortgage, like all of the reporters at the NYT.  I can only image DC and LA. Quite sad.

          • hennorama

            M S – TY for your response.

            “Everyone knows” is a trope used by those unable to prove their claims.

            Alternatively, to quote you from an earlier post, “ ‘I do not recall’ always works as a last resort.”

            And please note that I did not ask a single question, “ridiculous” or otherwise.

          • M S

            Whatever. You sound like the type of person who is heard to constantly say, “Eh, that’s anecdotal”, even though you give them 100 examples. I suppose I could conduct a study and ask every nanny I see walking around the City if they are in the country legally, but I already know the answer and Obama would probably send the Justice Department after me (though it is perfectly fine for Bloomberg to ‘Stop & Frisk’ me, but that’s another topic for another time). And fine, you did not ask a question…”Prove it” is a ridiculous sentence.

          • hennorama

            M S – TY for your response.

            “Whatever” is also a trope used by those unable to prove their claims.

            If a challenge to “Prove. It.” is too difficult for you, why not instead provide some independent evidence of your claims that:

            “Everyone knows that the illegals provide cheap labor to the West Coast and East Coast liberal elites,”

            and

            “it’s mostly those liberals who make enough to just barely afford a nanny with their brownstone mortgage, like all of the reporters at the NYT.”

            BTW, I haven’t agreed or disagreed with your claims, but merely am challenging you to either prove them or to provide some independent evidence of their validity. If, as you claim “Everyone knows,” then one would expect there to be abundant evidence to support such a claim, and that it would be a simple task to provide such evidence.

            One expects your second claim to be the more difficult of the two, as it includes the word “all”. Regardless, good luck, assuming you decide to take up this now much easier challenge.

            TY again for your response.

          • M S

            You’re very welcome. I can only say that if you have been these regions, have not seen this, and are not a part of “Everybody”, you either haven’t been to the right neighborhoods or perhaps you were there at the wrong time of the day (between 3 am and 5:30 am) or maybe you’re just not that observant. I haven’t met too many who can honestly deny what I have said, but if you have a curious mind and you want to know the truth (which I doubt), you should conduct your own research. I invite you to NYC.

            For some background on the nanny and live-in domestic situation, you can begin here (from a simple Google search):

            http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/27/1242011/domestic-workers-low-wages/

            http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/nyregion/few-domestic-workers-know-about-law-protecting-them.html

            http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/nyregion/03nanny.html

            http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/06/18/2175201/undocumented-nanny-exploited/

            http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-02-immigrants_N.htm

          • hennorama

            M S – TY again for your response. Please note in advance that due to the DISQUS format, the length of this reply will stretch out considerably.

            I do indeed want to know the truth. My aim in challenging your claims is to improve the discussion. Arguments that include the words “everyone” or “all” or “never” are only rarely shown to be true. You wrote about “all of the reporters at the NYT” and initially made claims about “Most of the illegals in NYC” and the politics and locations of their employers, followed by a claim about those who “benefit” from “most illegal labor.”

            These are two different claims, and are virtually unsupportable. Unsupported claims are opinions, and should be presented as such.

            You wrote “Most of the illegals in NYC are working for elitist Democrats on the UWS and Park Slope. In fact, most illegal labor benefit limousine liberals like Jack and Tom.”

            As to the examples you’ve linked to, they provide only some limited evidence, about some “illegals.”

            The first article indicated “For undocumented workers, who make up a significant portion of the domestic workforce…” The survey cited in the article was limited to “Domestic Workers” and notably neither “Most of the illegals in NYC,” nor “most illegal labor.” The Appendix in this “first-of-its-kind survey of more than 2,000 domestic workers in 14 American cities” cited in this article indicated that 78% of the domestic workers in their sample were foreign born, and 47% of them were Undocumented Immigrants.

            This works out to 36.7% of the total being both foreign born and undocumented. 36.7%, not “most.”

            See:http://www.domesticworkers.org/pdfs/HomeEconomicsEnglish.pdf (Appendix A)

            The second article said only “Many domestic workers are illegal immigrants …” Again, nether “Most of the illegals in NYC,” nor “most illegal labor.” There was no other mention of immigration status, nor was there any discussion about the politics of their employers.

            Your third article mentions “It would affect an estimated 200,000 workers in the metropolitan area: citizens, legal immigrants and those here illegally as well” and “the extension of workplace protections to illegal immigrants” and “immigrants lacking legal documentation” and “groups of employees that included illegal immigrants” on the first page. Again, nothing about “Most of the illegals in NYC,” nor “most illegal labor.” Maybe there was something on page 2, but one suspects not.

            The fourth article discussed a single “Undocumented Nanny” and “undocumented immigrants like Villanueva” and “many undocumented immigrants” and “undocumented immigrants who make up a large population of domestic workers.” Again, no mention of political views of employers, nor “Most of the illegals in NYC” or “most illegal labor.”

            Your final example, dateline Houston, discussed “the hundreds of thousands of foreign-born women, many of them in the United States illegally, who toil in America’s homes as nannies, cooks and housekeepers…” and “people can be very, very vulnerable, particularly if they’re not documented” and “tallying their exact numbers … is near-impossible” and “many undocumented women prefer working in the underground economy…” and “5,300 newly unionized Houston janitors, mostly immigrant women”

            The sole item in all of these articles that is supportive of your claims is from the last link:

            “Angelica Salas, CHIRLA’s executive director, estimates there are at least 90,000 domestic workers in greater Los Angeles, perhaps 70% of them illegal immigrants.”

            Note again that this says nothing about ““Most of the illegals in NYC,” nor “most illegal labor.”

            And of course, there was absolutely no mention of the politics of the employers.

          • M S

            You’re very welcome again. I now understand the roots of our disagreement. When I say words like “everybody knows”, I do not mean every single last person. And when I say “all the reporters at the NYT”, I do not mean each and every reporter at the newspaper, I am simply pointing to a certain type of individual, obviously not all need the services of a nanny. You take these phrase in their literal meaning, so in this sense, your points are well taken. If I was in a courtroom, I can promise you I would choose my words more carefully. It does seem to me that we can at least agree that a significant portion of the domestic workers in NY, CA, DC and other liberal leaning areas are illegal immigrants and that by Federal and State laws, they and their employers are engaging in unlawful activities, yes? I wonder however, why you never challenged the commenter I was replying to who said, “Romney had some mowing one of his lawns.” When in fact Romney never had any illegal immigrants cut his lawn. He employed a contractor who in turn had illegal immigrants work on his property.

          • hennorama

            M S – my reply is posted “up top” due to format and space limitations.

        • hennorama

          M
          S – TY again for your response, far below.  This reply is presented here due to format and space limitations:

          Please
          again note that I haven’t neither agreed nor disagreed with you or
          your claims, but have simply pointed to some weaknesses in your
          arguments. Poking holes in your arguments is not prima facie
          evidence of disagreement.

          I
          agree with a limited portion of what you wrote in your recent post,
          that “a significant portion of the domestic workers [in the US] …
          are illegal immigrants and that by Federal and State laws, they and
          their employers are engaging in unlawful activities.”

          As
          you are a relatively infrequent commentator in this forum, one does
          not expect you to be familiar with either its history, or the records
          of various posters.

          I
          personally have written more than fifty comments in this forum
          related to the topic of immigration. The following is from way back
          in August 2012:

          “Arguments
          over the effects of illegal immigration, both negative and positive,
          can go on forever. However, keep in mind one stubborn fact – without
          employers who are ready and willing to break the law by hiring
          illegal workers, few would take the considerable risk of crossing the
          border.”

          See:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/08/27/gop-convention-kicks-off#comment-630955753

          And
          in sympathy with a portion of your argument, from January 2013:

          “As
          it stands, we have millions of lawbreakers employed by hundreds of
          thousands, perhaps even millions of other lawbreakers. This must
          change. We can’t simply continue on as is, with a segment of society
          living in the shadowy world of the underground economy, always
          looking over their shoulder and unable to actively contribute to
          society for fear of exposure. We need to integrate these people into
          our society, so they can take their proper place and add their
          skills, talents, arts and culture for the good of the nation as a
          whole.

          “Just
          as the millions of past immigrants have, whether they arrived via
          legal or illegal means. We are a nation of immigrants. This diversity
          is an enormous strength, not a weakness. We can and will fix this.”

          See:

          http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/01/29/immigration-reform#comment-782708397

          If
          your argument is that some people, in NYC and elsewhere, are
          hypocrites due to having hired, directly or indirectly, workers who
          do not have the legal right to work in the US, and who at the same
          time declaim either their support or opposition to illegal
          immigration, you will get no argument from me.

          Certainly
          hypocrisy acquiesces to no political boundary, and if such a thing is
          certain, one should not limit one’s argument to any portion of the
          political spectrum.

          Wouldn’t
          you agree?

          As
          to Mr. Romney – his circumstances were a political delimiter, as he
          indicated after learning that there were illegal aliens working the
          ground on his property. He said “I’m running for office for
          Pete’s sake, we can’t have illegals.”

          One
          must note that he did not say anything like “I oppose anyone who
          hires undocumented workers, and will work to change any such
          circumstances by enforcing laws against employers of undocumented
          workers”.

          But
          I digress.

          My
          main point was that your arguments were weak. and easily challenged.
          You clearly can do better.

          • M S

            I did hope that the clarification of the words I chose strengthened my argument, but it’s fair that you neither agree or disagree with my claims. I hope in time you become more definite.

            It’s great that you have posted on immigration before here. I reviewed your previous posts. I have heard similar rationale before, but I find much of it lacking in fullness of explanation:

            I’ve always found the “bring people out of the shadows” necessity argument to be limited and contrived to promote the idea that a new solution is needed. You stated that, “We can’t simply continue on as is, with a segment of society living in the shadowy world of the underground economy.” Why can’t we? And the “Can’t simply” phrase seems like hyperbole. Most criminals who flee law enforcement do live in the “shadows”. Most however are not so brazen as many illegal immigrants are, living openly in our society – using public services, conducting business, banking, driving unlicensed, etc. Ironically, it doesn’t seem like they are in the “shadows” at all. I would think that they being “brought out of the shadows” would only be so the authorities can locate them and that they may face justice. The current reform effort forgives, accommodates, and some would say, rewards criminality…a corroding effect on the Rule of Law. Anyway, as for the “willing employers”, those found guilty of employing illegal immigrants can be prosecuted using current laws.

            Why do they “need” to be integrated? What is the necessity? They are not citizens and the country doesn’t have any obligation to them. I would think that their government and fellow citizens would integrate them back into their society.

            Why is it “impractical” to deport them? President Obama has been deporting people at about a 400,000 per year rate, if we increased the effort, we could deport them all in a few years. Those that say it is impractical simply would choose not to.

            You also said, “so they can take their proper place.” What do you mean by “proper place”? Wouldn’t their proper place be in the country of their origin and not here illegally?

            You said, “and add their skills, talents, arts and culture for the good of the nation as a whole.” Are their no negatives or downside? If so, what are they? A statement of only their contributions seems biased. Maybe you should also list the downsides and what should be done to address them.

            “Just as the millions of past immigrants have, whether they arrived via legal or illegal means. We are a nation of immigrants,” you stated this apparently as a justification for them being here. We are a nation of immigrants, but we also have always deported people for various reasons including criminality, so I do not understand. Do you mean that because others have broken the law in the past, it is okay for illegal immigrants now to do so?

            As for Mr. Romney’s statement, it seems logical that he was extremely concerned. Although he did not knowing employ illegal immigrants, patronizing businesses that hire them is unseemly and would be detrimental to his candidacy, thus yes, it is a “political delimiter”. I would expect this of any modern-day politician running for the highest office. Apparently, after finding out that the company had sent another illegal immigrant to work on his property, he fired them. It does seem like he is opposed to those who hire undocumented workers as displayed by his actions, not words. What people do not know is whether he would have done the same if he wasn’t running for President. Only after knowing that could one judge his character, otherwise, it is not an honest assessment and they are simply projecting what they want to see.

          • M S

            I did hope that the clarification of the words I chose strengthened my argument, but it’s fair that you neither agree or disagree with my claims. I hope in time you become more definite.

            It’s great that you have posted on immigration before here. I reviewed your previous posts. I have heard similar rationale before, but I find much of it lacking in fullness of explanation:

            I’ve always found the “bring people out of the shadows” necessity argument to be limited and contrived to promote the idea that a new solution is needed. You stated that, “We can’t simply continue on as is, with a segment of society living in the shadowy world of the underground economy.” Why can’t we? And the “Can’t simply” phrase seems like hyperbole. Most criminals who flee law enforcement do live in the “shadows”. Most however are not so brazen as many illegal immigrants are, living openly in our society – using public services, conducting business, banking, driving unlicensed, etc. Ironically, it doesn’t seem like they are in the “shadows” at all. I would think that they being “brought out of the shadows” would only be so the authorities can locate them and that they may face justice. The current reform effort forgives, accommodates, and some would say, rewards criminality…a corroding effect on the Rule of Law. Anyway, as for the “willing employers”, those found guilty of employing illegal immigrants can be prosecuted using current laws.

            Why do they “need” to be integrated? What is the necessity? They are not citizens and the country doesn’t have any obligation to them. I would think that their government and fellow citizens would integrate them back into their society.

            Why is it “impractical” to deport them? President Obama has been deporting people at about a 400,000 per year rate, if we increased the effort, we could deport them all in a few years. Those that say it is impractical simply would choose not to.

            You also said, “so they can take their proper place.” What do you mean by “proper place”? Wouldn’t their proper place be in the country of their origin and not here illegally?

            You said, “and add their skills, talents, arts and culture for the good of the nation as a whole.” Are their no negatives or downside? If so, what are they? A statement of only their contributions seems biased. Maybe you should also list the downsides and what should be done to address them.

            “Just as the millions of past immigrants have, whether they arrived via legal or illegal means. We are a nation of immigrants,” you stated this apparently as a justification for them being here. We are a nation of immigrants, but we also have always deported people for various reasons including criminality, so I do not understand. Do you mean that because others have broken the law in the past, it is okay for illegal immigrants now to do so?

            As for Mr. Romney’s statement, it seems logical that he was extremely concerned. Although he did not knowing employ illegal immigrants, patronizing businesses that hire them is unseemly and would be detrimental to his candidacy, thus yes, it is a “political delimiter”. I would expect this of any modern-day politician running for the highest office. Apparently, after finding out that the company had sent another illegal immigrant to work on his property, he fired them. It does seem like he is opposed to those who hire undocumented workers as displayed by his actions, not words. What people do not know is whether he would have done the same if he wasn’t running for President. Only after knowing that could one judge his character, otherwise, it is not an honest assessment and they are simply projecting what they want to see.

    • donniethebrasco

       If illegals don’t vote, how will the Democrats win elections?

      • John_in_Amherst

         if the GOP doesn’t pander to xenophobes and racists, how will it win elections?

        • Ray in VT

          They can concentrate on the homophobes.

          • Don_B1

            Except that there just aren’t enough of them even in the Republican Party, though some districts do have a lot.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        The New, New Black Panthers, and ReAcorn Alliance?

        • Ray in VT

          Plus they’ll just give handouts to buy votes.

      • hennorama

        If OnPoint didn’t have this forum, how would donnietheblowhard’s warped self-image survive?

  • Ray in VT

    Stephen Colbert:  If DOMA is unconstitutional, then the Constitution is gay.

    • brettearle

      In addition to satin- or silk-like tights, the Framers wore suggestive wigs or controversial hair-piece styles. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Voter problems and irregularites” is a cute way of whitewashing all the voter suppression laws the GOP has tripled-down on in the last five years.

    “My argument”, says Seib? I thought we were getting a reporter, not an emissary from the WSJ’s op-ed page. There’s plenty of places Rightlandia’s viewpoint appears on public radio.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Mr. Seib doesn’t write on the WSJ editorial page or op-ed page.  He is not a member of the editorial board.  Try again.

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126832878888060011.html

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I didn’t say he writes on the editorial or op-ed pages, or is on the editorial board. Reading miscomprehension much?

        He sounds like he’s not reporting. He’s a bureau chief, says the top of the page. But he’s here making what sounds to me as arguments. Not making allegories to someone else’s arguments. But interjecting his, as if public radio needs one more Beltway Inbred voice from the underrepresented right wing media.

        Like I said, he sounds like another WSJ op-ed type. And the WSJ op-ed page has the reputation of ruining the reputation of some decent reportage on their news pages.

        One way to not fight that is to come up with another Beltway Inbred guy (who’s never had his voting rights suppressed) to tell us all how the Voting Rights Act works for southern blacks, so now we don’t need the Voting Rights Act.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           OK, I get it.  You don’t like him or the facts laid out in the Robert’s opinion that Mr. Seib was reporting on.

          • StilllHere

            Facts in general I think.

      • StilllHere

        TF is some pathetic fact-free autobot from a juvenile Russian programmer.  Ignore.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          That’s some real thin ice coming from a troll like you.

        • nj_v2

          ^ Troll

      • StilllHere

        Watch out for the pathetic autobots.

        • Ray in VT

          I’m more concerned with the usual DeceptiCons that are out in force today.

  • Coastghost

    Yes, this week Obama exercised Presidential powers with climate-control fiats while FAILING COMPLETELY AND MISERABLY TO EXERCISE POWERS AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF to apprehend the criminal traitor and rat Edward Snowden.

    • J__o__h__n

      Snowden is a criminal matter.  Is the Comander in Chief supposed to invade Russia to get him?

      • Coastghost

        Snowden is a national security embarassment apparently still capable of divulging further intelligence data. National security is Obama’s chief job most days he’s POTUS. If Obama is suddenly too regal to perform the duties he was elected to perform, he is plainly derelict. Obama and his Administration (chiefly Kerry and Holder, along the Pentagon and our intelligence agencies) are directly responsible NOW for Snowden’s continued evasion, as they have been since Snowden skipped out of Hong Kong, and I can hardly wait to read the gripping history of how THAT fiasco occurred.

        • M S

          Yes, he should break international law to get Snowden. Brilliant idea.

      • jefe68

        This guy seems like an extremist.
        Also kind of clueless in how the law works in cases such as these.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      It was really traitorous to tell the terrorists that we are monitoring them. They would never suspect ’cause they are dumb and never watched “24″ or “NCIS”.  Now they’ll stop explaining their plans on Facebook.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    The Texas lege tried to back-time the TRAP bill as having been voted on and passed, successfully, in the time allotted. While the whole thing was being recorded on paper, and videostreamed live.

    Does that make the GOP leadership of the lege more criminal, or more stupid?

    What does it take for that to front-page material anywhere?

    • donniethebrasco

      The Massachusetts legislature turned back the clocks and had a voice vote to agree that it was 11:54PM when all of the clocks said it was 12:02AM.

      Voice votes in the Mass legislature are corruption of the political system.  The leadership takes what they want and ignores the representatives.  They also allow legislators to not admit to voting for or against a motion.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        If you’re going to tangent to a tangent to something that unrelated simply to tar Massachusetts (i.e. Democrats), you can make a new thread. Or I can link to a horde of incidents where GOP leges in other states did worse.

        Don’t play this game. You’ll lose.

        • jefe68

          I doubt this troll has the mental ability to parse what you posted. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Yeah, but if it keeps one public radio staffer from kneejerking “Well, both sides…”, it’s worth the fifteen seconds I spent on it.

          • jefe68

            I don’t think anyone at BUR is paying attention to what this guy is posting. He’s looking for attention that’s for sure.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I’d like to hold your viewpoint, but until the NPR ombud says “We’re tired of trying to get Fox News / Rush / rightwing adherents to like us“, I’ll withhold my judgment.

        • StilllHere

          So predictable.

      • StilllHere

        Well said, but the usual suspects will criticize you and evade your comment.

    • hennorama

      I’d never heard of Texas Sen. Wendy Davis prior to her filibuster, but she’s now on one of my news alert lists.

      Talk about raising one’s profile …

  • Steve__T

     ” It’s the last thing I would suspect.”
    I wonder why, actually I don’t.  I know why and so does everyone else who has read your post.

  • donniethebrasco

    Jack, have you ever called anyone a Nazi?

  • donniethebrasco

    Paula Deen is the victim of a witch hunt.

    She should have refused to answer the questions in the deposition.

    • nj_v2

      ^ Wind him up, watch him go.

      Sad that public self-embarrassment isn’t enough to deter this kind of display.

      • jefe68

        He’s get’s the title of Energizer Bunny of irrelevance. 

      • donniethebrasco

        Low information debates.

        You don’t discuss the issue.

        You take your narrative and refuse to listen to what happened.

        I thought you were my …..

    • M S

      Probably, but clearly she’s a moron.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        In what part of this imbroglio is she a “moron”?

        For having answered the questions? I’ve never been deposed, so I can’t say that she had the option to clam up. (That’s a question for a lawyer.)

        For the original utterances? Yeah, that wasn’t something to be proud of. First she had to have these thoughts, then she had to form sentences. It wasn’t like using the F-word in front of your child because some jerk almost hits your car.

        I mean, that’s putting aside the entire public/private/who knows what someone really thinks aspect, and how what she has to sell, to maintain, is her goodwill and name.

        That’s in contrast to a business executive or athlete who’s contributing to an organinzation “in the boardroom” or “on the field” and gets into hot water for saying things that have nothing to do with their work.

        • M S

          In today’s society, admitting to saying such a thing is instant trouble and should have known this. She would have been better off if she had said that she couldn’t recall exactly if she did or didn’t say it…and stick to it. You have to become a master of your words. Haven’t you ever listened to Congressional testimonies? Just look to Corzine as an example of how to conduct oneself if you’re guilty.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Congressional testimony? Sure. I’ve logged plenty of Enron and Jack Abrahamoff time.

          • M S

            “I do not recall” always works as a last resort.

    • John_in_Amherst

       especially since she obviously doesn’t know how to keep her foot out of her mouth.

  • donniethebrasco

    How to get a comment flag

    “I don’t think that was George Bush’s fault”

    • StilllHere

      They use flags because they’re afraid of honest debate.

  • donniethebrasco

    Obama is out of his mind trying to call carbon dioxide a pollutant.

    • M S

      Why? What is your definition of a pollutant?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Atmospheric CO2, in concentrations of 400ppm or even 500ppm, cannot be considered a DIRECT pollutant because it does no direct harm — unlike SO2 or CFCs.  The argument against CO2 is that it might effect the climate significantly and adversely at some point in the future.

        Personally, I don’t think Obama should be able to contort the clean act to regulate CO2.  If he thinks this is important, he needs to convince the American people and Congress that CO2 needs regulation.  To make his case he will need to justify that the benefits of his proposal will outweigh the costs.

        • M S

          CO2 contributes DIRECTLY to the acidification of the ocean.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             True but it isn’t clear that those levels are problematic.  The pH of the ocean was much lower when most sea life evolved.

          • jefe68

            And you’re an expert on the ocean now?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Never claimed to be an expert but I can read.

          • StilllHere

            Please, if we held that rube to his own standard, we’d never hear from him again.  #Expertinnothing

          • TomK_in_Boston

            You can read what agrees with your ideology. Why not try reading NOAA and the National Academy instead of “wattsup” for a change?

            Geez. Who cares about the pH when marine life evolved? I care about what will happen now.

            Acidification and temperature rise is destroying coral reefs.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Tom, what was the pH of the oceans when coral reefs evolved?

          • John_in_Amherst

             several studies of sea life recently appearing in the media and/or scientific journals document adverse effects already.  e.g.: Oysters are already being stressed by rising acidity, resulting in lower viability of their spawn

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             A quick search on oysters and acidification unveiled this paper.

            “We found no significant effect of ocean acidification”

            http://www.kultur.gu.se/digitalAssets/1292/1292992_Havenhand___Schelgel__Biogeosci._09_.pdf

            Maybe there is something there.  We’ll see.

          • John_in_Amherst

             check this, from the National science foundation, about the collapse of the Oregon oyster fishery due to acidification:  http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=123822

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Thank you for the link.

          • M S

            Isn’t the increased acidification reeking havoc on the reefs?

        • nj_v2

          Wow, that sounded so science-y there for a minute.

        • John_in_Amherst

           97% of scientists surveyed conclude that CO2 is already affecting the climate.  That Obama hasn’t convinced a large part of the public has more to do with disinformation promulgated by Big Oil and Coal and parroted by talk radio and the media, especially FOX, than with the facts of the matter.  And yes, when we have to pay the full cost of using fossil fuels (instead of deferring payment for the adverse effects on the climate to future generations), it will cost us more. 
          “We do not inherit the earth from our forefathers, we borrow it from our children”.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             97% of scientists don’t believe in climate alarmism.

            I just wish Obama would recognize the REAL danger to our children that our massive debt and deficit will cause.  Further, the debt and deficit is something Obama can effect.

          • Don_B1

            False again! Even Speaker Boehner has admitted that the deficit is no longer a big immediate problem.

            But delaying cutting CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels will create a $3.5 Trillion liability. Are you saving now so you can afford your part of that? That is a much bigger problem than it looks because there will be less profit and growth in an economy held back by environmental catastrophe after catastrophe, where so much has to be rebuilt every year, instead of growing new capabilities.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            LOL!!  Now you are quoting Boehner?  Another country club Statist?

            Boehner and Obama should go back to the golf course and start working on the debt.

            Remember when Obama said he would go through the budget “line by line” and cut out all waste, fraud and abuse?  That was early 2009 and we are still here waiting in 2013 for that promise to be fulfilled.

    • John_in_Amherst

       sewerage is a natural byproduct of human habitation.  so it isn’t a pollutant?

    • J__o__h__n

      Didn’t Reagan say that trees caused pollution?

    • nj_v2

      Whereas you’re just out of your mind.

  • nj_v2

    Jackassery report, Rethuglicon, regressive right-wing edition…

    http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-pushes-constitutional-amendment-banning-same-sex-202018408.html

    Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, and other conservative members of Congress say they will attempt to introduce in the coming days a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.…

    [[ …"This Court has taken it upon itself the radical attempt to redefine marriage," Huelskamp said, standing outside the Supreme Court. "I think what gets lost in this judicial attempt to short-circuit the democratic process is the needs of our children…. Every child deserves a mommy and a daddy and with this decision they undercut the needs of our children." ]]

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/27/2223471/six-states-already-moving-forward-with-voting-restrictions-after-supreme-court-decision/?mobile=nc

    [[ Less than 48 hours after the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, six of the nine states that had been covered in their entirety under the law’s “preclearance” formula have already taken steps toward restricting voting. ]]

    http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rand-paul-backtracks-after-likening-gay-marriage-to

    [[ Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) beckpedaled [sic] Wednesday after he suggested that the Supreme Court’s decisions on same-sex marriage could lead to bestiality.

    The self-described “libertarian Republican” told conservative firebrand Glenn Beck that, in the absence of marriage laws, people may attempt to marry other species.

    “But it is difficult, because if we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further  – does it have to be humans?” Paul said. “The question is: can some social mores be part of legislation? Historically, we did at the state legislative level, we did allow for some social mores to be part of it.” ]]

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/06/25/glenn-beck-defends-paula-deen/194588

    [[ Conservative commentator Glenn Beck ran to the defense of celebrity chef Paula Deen's right to use racial slurs without fear of being fired from her lucrative deals with the Food Network, QVC, and others. Deen came under fire after she admitted to using the racial slur on several occasions. Beck claimed her critics were engaging in "McCarthyism" and described Deen's words as "violations of political correctness, nothing more."…

    …On his June 24 web show, Beck used the backlash against Deen as a platform to rant about what he believes is the active destruction of Constitutional principles, arguing that attacks on Deen over the content of her speech are symptomatic of the nation's decline. Remarkably, Beck invoked the name of African-American civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. to defend Deen's use of racial slurs and attack the use of public boycotts -- a tactic King and others utilized to great effect during the civil rights movement. ]]

    http://mediamatters.org/video/2013/06/22/ben-stein-on-fox-despite-what-global-warming-te/194560

    Ben Stein On Fox: Despite What “Global Warming Terrorists Will Tell Us, The Science Is Not Clear On” Climate Change

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-usa-arizona-minuteman-idUSBRE95J03C20130620

    [[ (Reuters) - The co-founder of the Minutemen civilian border patrol group that for several years watched for unauthorized immigrants crossing to Arizona from Mexico, was arrested on Wednesday on suspicion of molesting three young girls.

    Chris Simcox, 52, who co-founded the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in 2005, was booked into a Maricopa County jail in connection with the molestation of three girls under the age of 10, said Sergeant Tommy Thompson, a Phoenix police spokesman.… ]]

  • Coastghost

    It might be a comforting fable for NPR et al., to put us to sleep with at nights: Obama is President only of domestic affairs. We can console ourselves now with the Disneyfied politics that we live in a world empty of all foreign intrigues: at least this fantasy enjoys the virtue of conforming with Obama’s practiced haughtiness and bitchiness. Foreign policy, which only lately was his masterful specialty, seems to have slipped from his manicured fingers.
    Forty- going on forty-five minutes into the hour, not a topic for illustrious representatives of the NYT and DMS (much less news advocate Jack Beatty) to take up: curious omission.
    News editing and news advocacy, courtesy of NPR: Non-responsive barely Public Radio, our enduring institutional monument to the memory of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the ugly stepson of FDR.

  • donniethebrasco

    George Zimmerman charged with killing Trayvon Martin after Martin beat up Zimmerman.

    Trayvon Martin had bruises only on his knuckles.

     

    • Steve__T

       And a big hole in his chest.

    • John_in_Amherst

        next time you are followed and accosted by someone, regardless of race, let us know if you fight back

    • StilllHere

      Sounds like self-defense.

      • John_in_Amherst

         sounds more like he picked a fight and then shot the guy

  • donniethebrasco

    Witch hunt #1 – Paula Deen
    Witch hunt #2 – George Zimmerman

    Light your torches.  Let’s get them.

    Not a witch hunt #1 – Aaron Hernandez
    Not a witch hunt #2 – Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

    • John_in_Amherst

       snipe hunt #1: find DTB’s brain…

      • hennorama

        It’s far simpler to simply click the little [Collapse thread] minus sign in donnietheboob’s gray name box, above.

        • nj_v2

          There ought to be a function to do that with a specified handle, permanently. Even the otherwise dismal, old AOhHell forums provided that capability.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Or a “pie filter”. You sound savvy-geek enough to know what that is.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t know about a pie filter but I do know that as nasty as you and NJ are, neither of you want to silence anyone.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            A pie filter is something that doesn’t change what’s on the forum, but what’s on the computer of the person with it. I think it would change things to pie recipes, hence the name.

  • donniethebrasco

    Low information show.

    • J__o__h__n

      Low information comments.

  • donniethebrasco

    Let’s celebrate living with low information.

    Let’s make our desired narrative ignore facts that oppose it.

    • John_in_Amherst

       so good to see someone living by what they profess

      • Ray in VT

        You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Nice summary of the man-made global warming deniers!

  • donniethebrasco

     If George Zimmerman were looking to kill African American, he wouldn’t
    have killed such a cute little boy and wouldn’t have let him kick his
    ass.

  • StilllHere

    The Constitution is a living document and the VRA outlived its useful life. 

    • Ray in VT

      Well, seeing as how the Constitution only means now exactly when it meant when it was written, then there is no such thing as freedom of speech on the Internet, seeing as how the freedoms of speech and the press only applied to what was spoken by mouth (and not broadcast by any means of then unknown magical device) or committed to some sort of paper-like product.  Also given that the Founders acknowledged the concept of “seditious libel”, which is not covered by free speech anyways, then the administration can go after you in our current state of “war” for what you do actually speak or print.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    The Family Research Council’s call to Sunday a day of action against same sex marriage has everyone around me in stitches. I don’t get it.

    http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/frc-on-our-knees-gay-marriage.jpg

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      Gee I’d like to donate my pink rhinestone encrusted kneepads, but I think i’ll need them for the weekend. 

      • Ray in VT

        Well, I am pretty sure that you now have to get gay married.

    • Ray in VT

      Maybe because they’re getting on their knees to opposite homosexuality?

    • Steve_the_Repoman

      For your understanding, not confrontational:

      2 Chronicles 7:13-14

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I know what the FRC are referring to, but the optics are just a bit “out there”.

        Like the old bit about the mayor who says “I’ll have the prostitutes of this city on their knees!”

    • insertcleverid

      Remember the controversy over the homosexual overtones in the tellitubbies tv program?  Same joke.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8YQr4kf3g

      • Ray in VT

        Well, Tinkie Winkie was pretty flaming.  ;)

      • insertcleverid

        I guess it works both ways.

        Hey! That’s also an unintentional dbl entendre! 

  • Ray in VT

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/walter-jones-obama-impeachment_n_3513138.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

    GOP Congressman threatens to impeach Obama “If Congress sends one troop, if one of our troops goes to Syria and is killed”.  That’s a bit strange if Congress sends troops, although I’ll rather gladly generally support Representative Walter Jones’ anti-war stance.

    How could Obama act without getting approval from Congress, though?  We all know that the President must always get Congressional approval when committing the armed forces anywhere.

    • HonestDebate1

      Obama didn’t get congressional approval for Libya either. He could take a lesson from GWB. Why do I get the feeling you were waiting for this reply?

      • Ray in VT

        Because I was.  He didn’t need Congressional approval for Libya, as the President has been able historically to make such moves without such approval.  Feel free to argue that one all weekend long as well, but you’ve got no historical ground on which to stand.

        • HonestDebate1

          Alrighty then.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        He IS like GWB.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – is Rep. Jones your Congressional representative?

        Just curious.

    • brettearle

      Theoretically, wouldn’t the War Powers Act–not that it would be used–give him Executive power, to so direct? 

      • Ray in VT

        The Commander in Chief has had pretty wide latitude to commit troops, at least on a limited or short term basis, without Congress needing to approve.  I think that there is some debate about whether or not the War Powers Act would be able to stand up in court.

        • HonestDebate1

          It is always better to get Congressional approval even if one thinks the WPA is unconstitutional.

          • Ray in VT

            Probably it is better, but it has not been necessary historically.  Reagan didn’t get approval for Grenada, and George H. W. Bush didn’t get approval for Panama.

    • TomK_in_Boston

      Can you have “one troop”?

      Prolly another righty hypocrite who’ll turn around and blame BHO for not “leading” by invading syria.

      • Ray in VT

        One could, but how effective could one man or woman be?

    • hennorama

      Is it me or is everyone missing the internal conditional logic failure in Rep. Jones’ words?

      He’s threatening to introduce articles of impeachment against the President “If CONGRESS sends one troop, if one of our troops goes to Syria and is killed…”

      If CONGRESS “sends one troop…” then that means Congress approved the action, obviating impeachment of the President.

      Right?

      • John_in_Amherst

         Like a lot of the ranting & raving done by the GOP in the house, logic doesn’t figure into the discussion.

        • hennorama

          True dat.

      • Ray in VT

        Yeah, I thought that that was strange.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    Good news of the week:
    1. We now have 2 great senators from MA.
    2. DOMA down.
    3. Obama recognizes #1 danger to the human race, insane buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Unfortunately conservative BHO tends to talk the progressive talk and not walk the walk, and I fear that will be the case on global warming. We need a war on coal and Apollo project on alternatives, but it ain’t gonna happen.

    Bad news:

    1. Broonz had their Bill Buckner moment.
    2. Pats had a gang banger at TE.

    • Coastghost

      Why yes, TomK in Boston, let’s just eviscerate the economies of West Virginia and eastern Kentucky and southern Pennsylvania, let us do so expeditiously, and THEN let’s spend Mayor Bloomberg’s fortune on lifting the placements of the portcullises all around the five boroughs. (Silly me: he doesn’t want to pay for it himself!)
      But by all means let us make life safe and pleasing for the industrious elites of the Vaunted Northeast Corridor, and to hell with all other lawful residents of the US as long as Boston and NYC and DC and all points in between get their Big Digs and their rising moats, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
      In its vast and undisputed success NPR has become one overbearing custodian of regional/sectional interests and Democratic partisanship in this country: another fair legacy from LBJ’s founding. 

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Geez, take a valium. If Megadeath Corp were building a doomsday machine and someone proposed to stop it, I’m sure you’d be crying about the damage to the local economy.

        Carbon is needed in a lot of products and could be taken from coal, but burning it in the atmosphere to produce heat is crazy.FYI, NPR is just another member of the righty corporate media. 

        • Coastghost

          Oh, Markey won? This would be the same Markey who’s been in the House probably since before the Big Dig was launched and who probably knows much more about the project than he has ever been asked. (Frankly, I don’t know what district Markey represented as Congressman, but in point of fact, he never initiated ANY Congressional inquiry into the malfeasance that accompanied the project with its $15 or 20 billion in cost overruns, did he? Kerry and Kennedy never launched Senate probes, either, did they?)
          Or maybe no one’s interested and no one much cares about the sordid state of his own commonwealth but prefers instead to launch economic war on other regions of the country not as blessed with such talent and application.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Geez, the Big Dig is an amazing success. It provided massive job creation for many years, and now the waterfront is the hottest neighborhood in Boston with new residences, restaurants etc opening all the time. The contrast between the horrendous elevated expressway and the beautiful greenway couldn’t be more striking. Did you somehow miss all that?

            $15, $20 or $100 bil is chump change compared to the impact of transforming a major city. 

            The Big Dig was badly managed, mainly because years of gvt bashing left the Commonwealth without the expertise in-house to do the job. The lesson is that if you have the right project, it’s almost impossible to have a bad outcome.

          • Coastghost

            Remind us of its virtues in five or ten years once Boston Harbor and the Charles start seeping in. (Big Dig tunnels STILL leak, do they not?)
            Of course, a Federal rescue will be required, Boston could hardly manage such a project on its own, even with all those brains parked at MIT and Harvard.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            I hope you can take a walk along the Boston waterfront and see what the Big Dig accomplished, in addition to 10-15 yrs of blue collar prosperity. Real world experience is better than parroting faux talking points.

          • jefe68

            Mr. Extremist…

          • nj_v2

            C’mon, Tom. Sure, it “accomplished” something. How could it not when it ran 10x+ over budget?

            Huge amounts of money are wasted on many (most) public projects, and the bigger they are, the more is wasted.

            I’ve seen it firsthand on the few relatively small projects i’ve been even tangentially involved in.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Payoff much greater than the waste. This will transform Boston for 100 years. What’s the value of that?

            We’re still using the projects from the Great Depression. 80 years of use is a lot of value!

            You can’t go wrong with infrastructure spending.

            Even the waste stimulates the economy. Money in the pockets of construction workers is good!

          • Ray in VT

            Mass could probably patch it up pretty easily on its own if it, along with other liberal states and Texas, stopped bankrolling those big government hating red states that nonetheless suck vastly more from the Feds than they contribute to the Feds.

          • jefe68

            Let me unpack what I think you are saying here.
            Are you saying that the engineering skills are not able to build tunnels? 

            If so I guess the Channel tunnel is in big trouble along with all the train tunnels going into New York City, to name a few.

          • Ray in VT

            Did you reply to the wrong person on this one, Jefe?  My point was that Mass wouldn’t need federal dollars if it had more of its own money, instead of propping up red states.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            It’s offensive that you promote policies that will cause sea level rise and then pontificate about the harbor seeping in.

          • Coastghost

            I hardly promote policies that “will cause sea level rise” one bit more than you, TomK: you’re the one blowing the horn of the Big Dig, which was designed to accommodate AUTOMOTIVE traffic. Or do you contend that the Big Dig will be recycling and carbon-capturing all the exhaust fumes that use of the Big Dig will generate?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Love the fountain. Before Big Dig, the view wd be of rusting metal and the sound wd be cars and trucks overhead.

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tg9u1b1eNfk/UC5gLQ9rTyI/AAAAAAAAScE/Z62XS7ZDfOM/s1600/Greenway_Fountain_HORIZ.jpg

        • jefe68

          He needs more than a valium…

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Does Markey still walk around with the cable remote control?  I’m so glad that Markey’s been so successful in keeping our cable rates so low over the last 37 years.  Keep up the good work.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

    • hennorama

      “Broonz” – love it!

      • TomK_in_Boston

        That’s the propah pronunciation :)

        BTW good one on carbon in the oceans previously. Yes the capacity of the oceans is one of the uncertainties, but everything will be saturated eventually. Carbonic acid has already destroyed a lot of coral reefs. 

      • J__o__h__n

        Actually it has been dumbed down to just Bs.  Even on NPR.  

    • nj_v2

      [[ 1. We now have 2 great senators from MA. ]]

      One and a half, maybe.Markey voted to approve use of force in Iraq and subsequent war funding.

      I worry that, when push comes to shove, he’ll line up behind Oilybomber on issues of foreign policy intervention, drones, etc. Gotta pay back the campaign visit.

  • Ray in VT

    It’s kind of like a partial-birth abortion or a death tax.  Some term that got made up by the right and pushed into the debate so as to alter the dynamics and (hopefully for them) public opinion on the matter.  Probably RU-486.  It’s either that or TK-421 or LV-426.

  • Don_B1

    Texas started reviving its laws on both, which were blocked for the 2012 Election by the DoJ under the VRA, Sections 4 and 5, within hours of the Tuesday decision.

  • OnPointComments

    I think this is an example of the “slippery slope” that occurs when the government is allowed secret warrantless surveillance of its citizens.
     
    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is gathering 10 years of historical personal financial information, including nonpublic and confidential information at a personally-identifiable level for credit card, banking, and loan transactions, for 5 million consumers, joint borrowers, and co-signers.  The US Chamber of Commerce accused the CFPB of breaking the law by demanding the account-level data without a warrant or National Security Letter.
     
    “The Obama administration’s warrantless collection of the private financial information of millions of Americans is mind-blowing.  Is there anything that this administration thinks it can’t do?” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These documents show that the Consumer Financial Protection Board is an out-of-control government agency that threatens the fundamental privacy and financial security of Americans. This is every bit as serious as the controversy over the NSA’s activities.”
     
    http://washingtonexaminer.com/feds-collecting-personal-confidential-data-on-consumers-credit-cards-bank-transactions/article/2532467

    • JobExperience

      If what you say is true I hope they will use the information to prosecute Wall Street Bankers for fraud and illegal manipulation.

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Great idea!
        Let’s see, if Romney was talking to someone in the Caymans, that’s a potential terrorist threat to the economy, right? :)

      • OnPointComments

        If your personal bank account information and credit card transactions can be used to prosecute Wall Street bankers, then maybe you will get your wish.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      I am sure these sort of things are just the tip of the iceberg. the question is when will people say enough is enough? we happily accept our children and grandparents being molested by federal agents to fly and I don’t see any huge outcry against all the spying (at least not according to what I have been told by the media)

  • Don_B1

    But that is why they put another case on next year’s agenda. As The New York Times’ headline said:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/roberts-plays-a-long-game.html?hp

    and I saw an article somewhere titled, “Justice Roberts has a long-term view.”

  • amberdru

    Amazing that the only thing that has no negative aspects is “immigration reform”. …Illegal aliens are all the rage and poor and working class Americans are passe.

    The black unemployment rate is 13.5%. What do you think doubling the number of legal immigrants (2.2 million a year), tripling the number of work visas and legalizing 11, 12,33 million (1986 3X’s as many illegals as predicted showed up) is going to do to American workers? The Congressional Budget Office predicts that S744 will lower wages and increase unemployment. How can you be for that? If that isn’t bad enough, the CBO also predicts that it will only reduce illegal immigration by 25%–and that if the border “promises” are kept. We know that just because a law passes does not mean it will be enforced.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    nj_v2

    I agree that the Big Dig was horribly mismanaged.

    My argument is that it has had such a powerful good effect on Boston, and provided such a blue collar stimulus for 10-15 years, that the waste will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Tg9u1b1eNfk/UC5gLQ9rTyI/AAAAAAAAScE/Z62XS7ZDfOM/s1600/Greenway_Fountain_HORIZ.jpg

    • jefe68

      It was more than that. I met one of the engineers about 8 years ago. Some of what he went on about was shocking in terms of cost overruns and mismanagement on a epic scale. Some of which were due to a lot of overcharging and theft on a grand scale.
      Such as large steel beams by the truck load.

      It was more than mismanaged, it was a project that has pretty much kept the MBTA from doing a better job in bringing mass transit into the 21′st century. 

      • TomK_in_Boston

        I know. And, I think $15 bil or whatever is a small price to pay for 15 yrs of a construction boom and transforming the city for the foreseeable future. Everyone talks about the costs, nobody talks about the benefits. Don’t you think turning a run down waterfront into a rapidly developing, beautiful neighborhood, which will keep “giving back” over many future years, is worth over $15 bil? I sure do.

        You’re right about the MBTA, but that’s a problem because the pols chose to dump the debt on the MBTA, not because of the Big Dig itself.

        Maybe it’s harder to appreciate it if you don’t live here, but our new waterfront is wicked pissah.

        • jefe68

          I live in Boston. You should do PR for the city. I’m not against the Big Dig project, it’s just the way it was done, some of the corruption on the contractor side and lastly the saddling so much of the debt onto the MBTA.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            jefe, I’m just asking to compare the benefits to the waste, ie simple accounting.  Is 15 yrs of construction boom and  transforming the waterfront to the city’s hottest neighborhood with the greenway, new Vertex HQ, ICA etc etc worth $15 bil? IMO it’s worth far more, especially considering that the benefits will be occurring over decades. If you live in B, I assume you know how the waterfront is booming:

            http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress/archives/51066

            The righty media echo chamber can’t get past the waste and mismanagement. They love it. They ignore the benefits. But the fact is, the benefits are huge.

          • jefe68

            Well I never go to the waterfront as I don’t live anywhere near it. It’s also not so easy to get there using the T.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            It’s a short walk from S Station on the red line and aquarium on the blue line, and the silver line takes you right to world trade center or the courthouse where whitey is on trial. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Now that’s a tourist attraction: The Whitey Bulger Trial, in it fifth smash month!

          • J__o__h__n

            I had the afternoon off and watched about 30 min of it on Friday. 

          • nj_v2

            This is really kind of a lame justification/rationalization for waste and fraud.

            There were some benefits, so waste? Eh, who cares?

            Let’s spend 10 times what we need on any given project, and just resign ourselves that corruption and incompetence are the rocks that come with the farm. This seems to be what you’re saying.

            What level of waste and fraud would get you concerned? $30 billion? 50? 100?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            You aren’t listening. Do the accounting. If the benefit is greater than the waste, sorry, it’s still good.

            The level that would make me say the project should not have been done is waste greater than the benefit. The long term benefit to boston of transforming that horrible decaying waterfront into the city’s hottest and very beautiful neighborhood. considered over decades, makes the waste = chump change. It’s not “some benefits”, it’s an enormous win for the city.

            Of course I wish the project had been well managed. The lesson is that a good infrastructure project is SO good that you can’t go wrong. The Big Dig was a great thing for Boston.

        • pete18

          This is perfect example of why you believe that any attempt as minimal as reducing the rate of INCREASE in government spending is considered extreme cutting by the plutocrats that will set back everything we’ve won for the poor and middle class in the last century. For you there never can be too much government spending.

  • HonestDebate1

    Sarah Palin weighed in on the Senate immigration bill. She warned the House they stand a good chance of forcing a third party if they endorse it… as Democrats salivate and Marco Rubio wonders what just happened.

    https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10151696565608588

    • OnPointComments

      I kind of hope Sarah Palin runs for the Senate and wins, if for no other reason than it would really, really annoy the liberals.

      • 1Brett1

        You’ve just proven suspicions are true that conservatives are more interested in disruption and obstruction than they are in governing, by your comment.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Dude, you beat me to it. “Not for governance, but to piss off liberals” is practically the GOP’s bumpersticker.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Wasn’t it a few short weeks ago that liberals on this board were salivating over Obama’s appointment of Susan Rice to nat. security adviser?  As I recall, the liberals weren’t  applauding Ms. Rice’s ‘vast’ national security experience [sic] but they were extremely happy to see Obama ‘stick his finger in the eye of Republicans’.

          • 1Brett1

            No, you are mistaken. The phrase, “…stick his finger in the eye of Republicans” was a phrase used by one of our usual neocan suspects saying liberals were extremely happy about that…

          • HonestDebate1

            There does seem to be agreement that Obama likes to stick his fingers in eyes though. I wish I could take credit for the phrase.

            “he basically sticks a stick in the eye of many Republicans and says, oh by the way, the people that you’ve been castigating, the people that you don’t trust I’m going to put in these two key positions.” Matt Dowd on This Week

            “And there needs to be a strategy in that the strategy of sticking your finger in these people’s eye all the time I don’t think will work.” -Bob Woodward

             

      • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd
      • TomK_in_Boston

        TeaOP circular firing squads sure don’t annoy me! Bring it on. Dumber the better.

    • hennorama

      Recent history of “third parties” in US elections:

      President – Fail.
      Senate – Fail.
      House – Fail.
      Governors – Fail.

      Fail. Fail. Fail. And Fail.

      That “warning” from Sarah “So that Alaska may progress… I will not seek re-election as Governor” Palin is worth as much as the hot air that comes out of her mouth – Z-E-R-O.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      SarahPalin fail.

      I hope she pays you what your worth to pimp her wordsalad.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        she better bring me my money

    • nj_v2

      Oh, look it’s a post about Sarah Pa…l…i……

      Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

  • OnPointComments

    One of the issues in the Zimmerman trial is who was on top straddling the other in the struggle on the ground, George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin.  The person on top was assaulting the person lying on the ground.  The first police officer on the scene testified today that when he arrived, George Zimmerman had multiple lacerations and was bleeding, his nose was swollen, his clothes were more wet on the back than the front, and Zimmerman had grass clinging to the back of his clothes.  The officer’s testimony was corroborated by one of the first neighbors on the scene who also testified that Martin was on top straddling Zimmerman, and was assaulting Zimmerman.  Neither the neighbor nor the officer had a previous relationship with either Martin or Zimmerman which might be perceived as a reason to slant their testimonies one way or the other.
     
    There’s more testimony to come, but all of this came out today from the prosecution case today.  I don’t see how a reasonable jury could not have reasonable doubt at this point.

    • 1Brett1

      You neglected to mention that another witness (finishing yesterday’s testimony) said that Zimmerman was on top.  The witness you mention from today’s testimony only saw the commotion for 10 seconds. Rather than say one witness is lying or mistaken, etc., isn’t it conceivable that Zimmerman could have been on top at first and Martin gained control and was on top after?

      However, I do agree with you in that there is a lot more testimony to come…and it is certainly conceivable that enough reasonable doubt can be established NOT to convict Zimmerman. The burden is on the state to prove, without reasonable doubt, guilt, not the defense to prove innocence. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      that girl is not even sure how old she is

  • hennorama

    Re: Wednesday’s Topic “What Obama’s ‘Climate Action Plan’ Has In Store”

    Anyone interested in how the Earth is one big connected system should watch the Nova episode “Earth From Space”. It aired Wednesday evening, and is really amazing.

    From the website:

    “Program Description

    “Earth From Space” is a groundbreaking two-hour special that reveals a spectacular new space-based vision of our planet. Produced in extensive consultation with NASA scientists, NOVA takes data from earth-observing satellites and transforms it into dazzling visual sequences, each one exposing the intricate and surprising web of forces that sustains life on earth. Viewers witness how dust blown from the Sahara fertilizes the Amazon; how a vast submarine “waterfall” off Antarctica helps drive ocean currents around the world; and how the Sun’s heating up of the southern Atlantic gives birth to a colossally powerful hurricane. From the microscopic world of water molecules vaporizing over the ocean to the magnetic field that is bigger than Earth itself, the show reveals the astonishing beauty and complexity of our dynamic planet.”

    You can watch it here:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/earth-from-space.html

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Thanks so much for posting this! I miss PBS and never think about checking for shows online. This will be the first thing on my to do list after storm cleanup in the morning. Thanks again!
      Hope you have a great weekend.

      • hennorama

        DrewInGeorgia – you’re quite welcome, and I hope you enjoy the show. One expects you’ll come away with a new-found respect for phytoplankton.

        Hope the damage wasn’t too significant. Best wishes.

  • 1Brett1

    The North Carolina legislature–that’s right, another southern, Red state, Republican legislative body–is forcing teachers to teach middle schoolers (some as young as 11 and 12) in health classes about how abortion adversely affects a woman’s pregnancy later in life, namely the cause of preterm birth. Not only is this controversial because of young children being forced to listen to such so-called information–information, by the way, that is highly debatable and not endorsed by a single health organization–but it is yet another measure by Republicans to propagandize issues surrounding abortion, unnecessarily, creating scare tactics that are forced on children, teachers and North Carolina’s  educational system. 

    http://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2013/06/27/bill-will-require-middle-schoolers-to-be-taught-about-causes-of-pre-term-birth/

  • HonestDebate1

    “Clarence Thomas’ actions here today — though consistent, though tragic to me — are even more so in light of the bulk of decisions he’s rendered in the name of a judicial vote on the Supreme Court,” Dyson told Bashir. “A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people,” he concluded.

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/06/28/msnbc-contributor-clarence-thomas-is-a-symbolic-genocideenabling-hitlerloving-jew-n1629562

    State Rep. Ryan Winkler, a Democrat from Golden Valley, posted on Twitter a comment meant to criticize the high court’s 5-4 ruling Tuesday that struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act.In his deleted tweet, captured by the Minneapolis City Pages blog, Winkler wrote there were “four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/06/25/clarence-thomas-voting-rights-twitter-winkler/2456457/

    The racism comes from the left.

    • jefe68

      And your’s comes for the right.
      There are bigots in all walks of life.
      I guess you think you’re backing up you claims.
      Alas you don’t do a damn thing other than prove there are idiots in both parties.

      • HonestDebate1

        What claims? I just wish someone would back up the claim that Republicans are more racist than Democrats or that whites are more racist than blacks.

        • jefe68

          I never said whites are more racist than blacks or purple people. The history of race relations in this country kind of skews how one can view race and difference in terms of black and white. It’s not that simple.

          You have a very simplistic view of race, difference and sexuality. It’s sophomoric to a fault. You act as if 600 plus years of oppression of African Americans means nothing.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not about getting even. It’s about treating people equally under the law. It’s about expecting excellence from your fellow man.

          • Steve__T

             So when does it start?

             How do you think having more blacks than whites in jail shows equality under the law, how do you expect excellence from some one who continues to tell you you are inferior to them? How do you forget the atrocities committed against your race when the confederate union jack is displayed predominantly every where you turn your head? HOW can you humble yourself enough to except all that? A lot have and still receive injustices of inequality on a daily basis. And people much like your self that think racism does not exist, do not see it, even when they say something racist themselves.

            We will overcome this some day, just not, today.

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly, democrats should stop telling blacks they are inferior. 

          • Steve__T

             Thanks for the excellent reply, NOT, you see you can’t even seem to do what you expect from others. But then you would hold someone else to a higher expectation.

            You should stop telling everyone your not a communist, and come out of the closet.

          • HonestDebate1

            People expect me to be able to obtain an ID because they expect me not to be a felon. They expect me to speak proper english. They expect me to pay my way through life. They expect me to refrain from using racial slurs. They expect me to be responsible. They expect me to have a clue as to how to cast a vote. They expect me to be clean and articulate. 

          • Steve__T

            We here expect you to be honest but your not.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you honestly expect the above out of blacks to the same degree as whites?

    • 1Brett1

      That’s heinous!

    • John Cedar

      The vast majority of racism, homophobia and misogyny  comes form the left. Look at the NYC mayoral election latest polls as a typical example. Look at what they did to Hillary in the ’08. Look at the “leader” who utters “hymietown”. It is just a fact of life that you have to learn to deal with the party of hate by de-funding them. Sure…ACORN will change their name, keep their tax ID number, but it still slows them down.

      • HonestDebate1

        With blacks comprising but 12ish% of the population Henny (above) makes a great case for the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than vice versa. Black on black crime is awful too, no one cares. They’re too busy painting with the racism brush while they make excuses for violence and tell blacks they are too stupid to excel without whitey’s help. It’s insulting.

        • hennorama

          Gregg
          Smith – one notes your bravely indirect response to my posts
          challenging your claims.

          Your
          words are a load of equine excrement.

          If
          you can prove your claims, please do so.

          If
          you can refute the data I have provided, please do so.

          I
          challenge you to explain each and every one of your prior claims, as
          well as your most recent claim that “Henny (above) makes a great
          case for the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black
          violence than vice versa.”

          One
          will interpret any lack of response to challenge(s) as an admission
          on your part that your claims are absolutely and completely false.

        • nj_v2

          Greggg responds seriously (as construed by his delusion- and Palin-addled brain), but irrelevantly to an utterly inane post by “John Cedar.”

          Right-wing circle of idiocy.

          • HonestDebate1

            39 times as likely.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – you seem to be significantly arithmetically impaired, sir.

          You wrote “Henny (above) makes a great case for the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than vice versa.”

          This “fact,” which you repeat ad nauseam, is a bold faced lie, sir.

          Mr. Smith – if you are able to, please follow the simple arithmetic below, which uses the information in my post above. As I know you are averse to reading, I won’t repeat the various important definitions and explanations in the post above, but I will walk you through each step of arithmetic, OK?:

          Only two pieces of data are needed to determine the rates of what you have called “Black on White” and “White on black” crime victimization rates:

          Number of crime victims in each category
          Total Population of each category

          Then all one needs to do is divide Victims by Population, which equals the Rate.

          With me so far? OK, good.

          “White only” victims of “Crimes of violence” indicated that the “perceived race of offender” was “Black” 15.4 percent of the time. We already know the number of “White only” victims – 2,788,600.

          So to find the number of “White only” crime victims in the “Black offender” category, we simply multiply:

          The implicit number of so-called “Black on White” Crimes of violence then is 2,788,600 x .154 = 429,444.

          So far so good, right?

          Now all we have to do is find the “White only” part of the US population in 2008. The US Census Bureau tells us that the “White Alone Not Hispanic Resident Population” in July 2008 was 199,494,458. (Population data Sources below)

          This gives us sufficient information to calculate the Rate of so-called “Black on white” Crimes of violence:

          429,444 (Crimes of violence)/199,494,458 (population) = 0.0021527 (0.21527 percent)

          This is a rate of 215 per 100,000 of the “White Alone Not Hispanic Resident Population”

          Again, the rate of so-called “Black on white” Crimes of violence is 215 per 100,000.

          You still with me, Mr. Smith? OK, good.

          Moving on, we simply repeat the process for what you like to call “White on black” crimes.

          570,550 “Black only” victims of “Crimes of violence,” multiplied by the “perceived race of offender: White” rate of 15.9 percent, gives us the implicit number of so-called “White on black” Crimes of violence:

          570,550 x .159 = 90,717

          Again, the US Census Bureaus gives us the “Black or African American Alone Resident Population” for July 2008: 39,058,834

          Rate of so-called “Black on white” Crimes of violence then is:

          90,717(Crimes of violence)/39,058,834 (population) = 0.0023226 (0.23226 percent)

          This is a rate of 232 per 100,000 of the “Black or African American Alone Resident Population”.

          Summarizing:

          Black offender/White only victimization rate = 215 per 100,000

          White offender/Black only victimization rate = 232 per 100,000

          In other words, so-called “White on black” Crimes of violence occurred at a slightly greater rate than so called “Black on white” Crimes of violence.

          Perhaps you need arithmetic lessons, Mr. Smith.

          Please stop repeating your bold-faced lie, sir.

          Sources of Population data:

          http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/2000s/vintage_2008/

          http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2008/tables/NC-EST2008-04-WANH.xls

          http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/asrh/2008/tables/NC-EST2008-04-BA.xls

      • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

        John Cedar= John Birch

    • hennorama

      Hey Gregg Smith – how’s the work on proving your sundry claims about “Black on white violence” and “white on black violence” coming along?

      One can only conclude from your silence that you still can’t prove the various claims that you’ve made, such as:

      “if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated but [sic] a black than vise versa [sic].”

      “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.”

      “blacks are more likey [sic] to victimize whites than vice versa.”

      While I’ve done a great deal of the “homework” for you already, please allow me to help further, by quoting some information on the topic of personal crimes of violence and the race or perceived race of victims and single offenders, from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics:

      “Table 42. Personal crimes of violence, 2008:

      “Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victim, and perceived race of offender”

      For the estimated 2,788,600 “White only” victims of “Crimes of violence”, the “perceived race of offender” was:

      White: 67.4%
      Black: 15.4%
      Other: 5.1%
      Not known or not available: 12.0%

      For the estimated 570,550 “Black only” victims of “Crimes of violence”, the “perceived race of offender” was:

      White: 15.9%
      Black: 64.7%
      Other: 7.3%
      Not known or not available: 12.2%

      “Crimes of violence” in this case were Rape/sexual assault, “Robbery, and Assault. The data are from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

      Since this is a survey of victims, homicide is not included as a “Crime of violence” in these tables.

      According to the BJS, “Racial categories presented in these tables now consist of the following: white only, black only, other race only (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander if only one of these races is given), and two or more races (all persons of any race indicating two or more races). Individuals are now asked whether they are of Hispanic ethnicity before being asked about their race, and are now asked directly if they are Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.”

      Conclusions:

      About two-thirds of the “Crimes of violence” shown above is INTRAracial. This level may actually be higher, due to the significant percentage of the “Not known or not available” “perceived race of offender” category.

      Single “Black” offenders committed 15.4% of “Crimes of violence” upon “White only” victims.

      Single “White” offenders committed 15.9% of “Crimes of violence” upon “Black only” victims.

      Source:
      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0802.pdf

  • John Cedar

    With all the attention the SCOTUS’s arbitrary and capricious decisions received this week on gay “rights”, few noticed a hopefully
    blockbuster and legally correct decision (for a change with this SCOTUS) for builders/developers and property owners. The Koontz victory!

    • hennorama

      “Plaintiffs In Gay Marriage Case Wed In SF, LA
      by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
      June 28, 201311:39 PM

      “The four plaintiffs in the U.S. Supreme Court case that overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban tied the knot Friday, just hours after a federal appeals court freed gay couples to obtain marriage licenses in the state for the first time in 4 1/2 years.”

      “Attorney General Kamala Harris presided at the San Francisco City Hall wedding of Kris Perry and Sandy Stier as hundreds of supporters looked on and cheered. The couple sued to overturn the state’s voter-approved gay marriage ban along with Jeff Katami and Paul Zarrillo, who married at Los Angeles City Hall 90 minutes later with Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa presiding.”

      Congratulations, Kris and Sandy, and Jeff and Paul!

      See:
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=196742234

      • HonestDebate1
        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

          You support polygamists? Interesting. What would Newt and Sarah say?

          • jefe68

            This is interesting. Some segments of the right are using polygamy as the new anti-gay rights meme.

            If it’s OK for gay and lesbians to marry they say, why not polygamists and of course there are some real wacky extremist who are adding animals.

            The level right wing regressives will stoop to is pretty childish and at the same time  wacky.

          • hennorama

            jefe68 – TY for your response.

            One wonders exactly when Republicans are going to “stop being the stupid party.”

            Jon Stewart had a hilarious segment back in April, titled “Red Brand Redemption” that includes skewering commentary about various Republican thoughts on same-sex marriage, NAMBLA, bestiality, polygamy, etc.

            My favorite line, which was bleeped, was “What is it with you people and the animal f**king?”

            http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-3-2013/red-brand-redemption

            And John Oliver, also on The Daily Show, did a segment titled “America Comes Out of the Closet – Republican Reactions,” just the other evening, here:

            http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-27-2013/america-comes-out-of-the-closet—republican-reactions

            Oliver’s best line came right after running video of Rep. Louie Gohmert saying “What we now have today is a holy quintet who goes against the laws of nature and nature’s God.”

            Oliver: “If your brain can’t process God’s creatures enjoying different kinds of sex, you don’t want to bring nature into this, because nature is where dogs hump each other in the face. In the face! That’s nature right there!”

            Meanwhile, a video of exactly what he was discussing was playing.

            Hilarious.

            Thanks again for your response and your thoughts.

          • HonestDebate1

            The logic is impeccable.

          • hennorama

            At the risk of wearing out the welcome of anagrams in this forum, one must note that

            “The logic is impeccable” = The Accomplice’s Big Lie

            and

            The Special Comic Bilge

            and

            The Imbecilic Ace’s Glop

            in addition to many, many, many others.

            See:
            http://wordsmith.org/anagram/index.html

          • HonestDebate1

            There are polygamist and they have a lobby. Certainly they are a small minority but they now have clear cut precedent under law to make their case. I wasn’t one to blow the horn for them during the debate. To be frank, I just don’t care a lot. I have my views and I oppose gay marriage but it’s not a hill I’m prepared to die on. I’ve said that all along. But they are on solid ground now. I find it odd that so many poo poo the notion. Mr. Darger has a long long way to go but the justification cited for gay marriage works for him. The slippery slope is definitely lubed up. I really wish I could think of a good reason to split hairs and tell Mr. Darger he has no argument.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Thank you ever so much for your response.

            One notes without judgment the interesting linguistic construct in your lead sentence:

            “There are polygamist and they have a lobby.”

            One also notes, without judgment as to the potential involvement of intoxicants in the formation of the aforementioned interesting linguistic construct, that it was Saturday afternevening throughout the USA when said construct was posted to this site.

            One also notes without judgment your use of the term “poo poo the notion.”

            Given your expertise in equine excrement, one must yield the benefit of the doubt that the use of “poo poo” is superior in your mind to the much more usual “pooh–pooh.”

            Thank you again for your response.

            Note please that one reserves comment as to your use of the phrase “lubed up.”
            .
            Please enjoy your evening, and express one’s best wishes to your significant other.

          • HonestDebate1

            What on earth is so hard to believe about the fact that polygamist exist and that they have a lobby? That’s weird.

          • jefe68

            Again, the GOP looks like a party of regressive wing nuts with a fixation on sex with animals. Not to mention the fetish with guns, cherry picking what they want government to control, as in woman’s health and gay marriage.  

          • HonestDebate1

            You forgot polygamy.

          • jefe68

            Me thinks the lady doth protest to much.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, it’s just that I didn’t say squat about that other stuff.

  • HonestDebate1
    • Steve__T

      Did you read who was protesting? Are you aligned with them?

      South Africa’s Communist party was also participating in the Pretoria protest. One member, Solly Mapaila told reporters that his group was marching because “We don’t share similar values with President Obama and the USA — which represent injustice, aggression, imperialism and an atrocious system of capitalism.”

      • HonestDebate1

        Yes, I saw. There were labor unions and climate activists as well as the Communist Party who came out in full force and support for Obama at his One Nation rally. He’s in trouble.

        • Steve__T

           Twisted that good, your own link is where that statement came from the communist party is protesting Obama not in support of him you are such a disingenuous ass.

        • 1Brett1

          You malign labor unions and climate activists every chance you get; the former as an underlying destructive force that has adversely effected everything from education to the economy, the latter as alarmists whose beliefs are delusional. Communists are also about as far away from rational beings, historically, in your views as can be, but all of these groups now are suddenly reasonable, rational  participants as protesters against Obama…Your propaganda is so  convoluted and self-contradictory, it regularly caves in on itself. 

          • Steve__T

             He actually a closet commie.

          • HonestDebate1

            Not me, do you mean Obama? I wouldn’t go that far.

          • jefe68

            Have you ever heard of the phrase of quitting while you’re ahead? 

            In your case it’s more akin to quitting before you make a bigger fool of yourself.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Jefe, you’re stealing my bit!

            My paternal grandmother would say “Quit while you’re behind” to me, my brother, or sister, when we were grade-schoolers.

            When I was six years old, I didn’t know what it meant.

          • HonestDebate1

            I see no reason to quit.

          • Steve__T

            Yes You, you’ve got a reading problem evidently. 

        • jefe68

          You keep posting these chestnuts. 
          The clown shoes keep getting bigger.

          • HonestDebate1

            He’s lost the African Communists, climate activists and unions.  Even the wackiest of the wackos from the homeland are dissing him. What’s that tell you? Where are the Obama shirts?

          • 1Brett1

            Since you believe the same things, one could say you stand proudly with African Communists, Climate activists and unions.  

          • Steve__T

            ” Even the wackiest of the wackos from the homeland are dissing him.”

            We know, you do it every day.

          • HonestDebate1

            What can he hang his hat on?

          • jefe68

            What does it tell me?
            That you’re even more challenged than I thought.

          • HonestDebate1

            You’ve rebutted squat. Just admit it Africa loves Bush. Obama, not so much.

  • HonestDebate1

    Can anyone say we are less divided by race, sex, party or income since Obama saved us? Are we safer? Are we more fiscally responsible? Are we leaving a better world for our children? Is there a nation on the planet that is a stronger ally after 5 years?

    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      Yes. Yes . Yes. Yes. and Yes. 
      Now put your arms up and step away from the little girl.

      • HonestDebate1

        Alrighty then.

    • Mike_Card

      And what would McCain have done better?

      • 1Brett1

        Or Romney?

        • pete18

          It would be hard to do worse.

          • 1Brett1

            pete18 on what the US would be like if Romney were President:

            “…hard…worse.”

          • HonestDebate1

            Good point, it’s almost like Obama is trying to fundamentally transform America.

          • jefe68

            No it would not.

      • HonestDebate1

        Absolutely, without a doubt. But that’s my opinion. I am looking for something, anything, Obama has made better.

        • TomK_in_Boston

          Memory loss?

          Remember the Bush crash? Panic? Fear of another Great Depression? Can you really not see that Obama did a nice job of stabilizing the system?
          http://www.bradblog.com/Images/JobLossGain_PrivateSector_Dec2007-Feb2011.jpg

          Remember 9/11, which happened after W went clearin’ brush in Crawford in response to being briefed “bin Laden Determined to Strike in USA” Nothing like that with BHO.

          Remember all the Americans getting killed in Iraq? Isn’t that better?

          Unbelievable.

          • HonestDebate1

            We are in this mess because of Obama. Obama owns this economy.

          • jefe68

            It’s funny, you blame Obama for the mess we are in, but he was not in office when it occurred. That said I don’t think he did enough to help stimulate the economy. 

            Despite the issue of the GOP being nothing short of an obstructionist party, the economy has been growing, not as much as we need it to, but it has. 
            You are aware that since Obama has taken office that more jobs have been created, not enough granted, but more than entire tenure (8 years) of GW Bush’s. 

             

          • HonestDebate1

            It should have been a blip, Obama made it worse. He’s running the economy in the ground. 

            The economy isn’t growing enough to keep up with population. Unemployment averaged around 5% under Bush. There is no way to logically argue that Obama has made things better.

          • jefe68

            It’s a good thing you’re not an economist. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I’m better at it than Krugman.

          • jefe68

            A legend in your own mind.

          • HonestDebate1

            Even Henny says I have credibility.

          • hennorama

            Yes, Gregg Smith, keep repeating your idiotic “It should have been a blip, Obama made it worse” nonsense.

            It adds eversomuch to your credibility.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            You asked what was better, I told you, you can’t hear it because of your ideology.

          • HonestDebate1

            No, I asked what Obama has made better. The economy still sucks.

          • TomK_in_Boston

            The economy is BETTER than when it was losing 800K jobs a month and we had a financial panic, you doofus. It’s BETTER not having heavy casualties in iraq. It’s BETTER to not have a 9/11 while the Prez is readin’ “my per goat”.

          • HonestDebate1

            And Obama did what?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Thingsyou hate when you’re talkig out of the other sideof yourmouth.

          • jefe68

            You keep
            contradicting
            your
            self.

          • pete18

            The crash in 2009 came about because of the Fanny and Freddie housing policies (government corrupting the market), which created an over-leveraged housing market full of people who should have never been holding a loan. Any of the deregulations that fueled the crash were signed into law by Bill Clinton. While there is plenty of blame to go around for both Democrats and Republicans, none of George Bush’s policies had anything to do with the crash.

            And while you love the Bush cutting bushes in Crawford meme as a way of critiquing Bush, he never had any actionable intelligence to work with,
            so that talking point (see how often you use them) is complete sophistry.

          • jefe68

            Actually the Bush administration and the Republicans did a their fair share in the lead up to the housing crisis. They ignored a lot of the signs of the pending financial crisis as well.

            But you are correct in there is enough blame to go around for both parties. 

          • HonestDebate1

            Bush tried to address it early on. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd swore there was no problem and they controlled the committees.

          • hennorama

            pete18 – a point of clarification, if I may.

            You wrote about “The crash in 2009…”

            The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) dates the Great Recession as starting in December 2007, and ending in June 2009.

            See:
            http://www.nber.org/cycles/sept2010.html

            And the housing crash was well under way prior to December 2007. The “S&P/CASE-SHILLER U.S. NATIONAL HOME PRICE INDEX” peaked in mid-2006.

            See:
            http://us.spindices.com/indices/real-estate/sp-case-shiller-us-national-home-price-index

            My personal indicator confirming a top in US housing prices was when there were at least three TV shows on the subject of house flipping on US TV at the same time, starting in 2006.

          • pete18

             Thanks for the clarification, doesn’t change my point.

      • pete18

        Yes.

      • 1Brett1

        Funny, the two neocons who answered your question can’t even answer a question properly.

        It’s like if you asked, “what would McCain have done?”

        Answer 
        1) “Yes”

        2) “Absolutely, without a doubt…”

        • pete18

          Yes.

    • jefe68

      Don’t you have horses to feed?

  • hennorama

    One week into Summer 2013 in the USA we see weather-related articles such as “Record-Breaking Heat Engulfs the West.”

    See:http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/extreme-heat-southwest-120-degrees-20130626

    Hucking fell.

    One delightedly admits to enjoying residence at present in a place that is in one significant way quite similar to both most American beers, and to making love in a canoe:

    f*#king close to water.

    Keep cool y’all.

  • Mike_Card
    • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

      That mouthpiece for anger and bigotry just might pull it off. i’ve often felt she is the most malevolent force in politics since Nixon: She’s like a lab experiment gone wrong and is highly infectious to her fellow ingnoranten.  
                            Sieg Heil!!

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        I like that phrase, “mouthpiece for anger and bigotry”.

        From all accounts we don’t know what she does as a private person. But boy howdy, she really plays to that crowd.

        To analogize, does it matter how upstanding and forthright P.T. Barnum might have been with his family and friends, considering how he huckstered the general population?

      • pete18

        “That mouthpiece for anger and bigotry..” I’m no big Sarah Palin fan but examples please? 

    • 1Brett1

      Well, she’s already created a new subspecies of human, why not a new “Freedom Party” to go with it?! At best, she’s a political grandstander, a purveyor [peddler] of political stunts…she might’ve been politically relevant once upon a time (in a new flavor of the month kind of way); she no longer has any political relevancy. 

      • jefe68

        It’s interesting how some on the right have given her a pass on her lousy political record. 
        She gave up her governorship and her performance during the general election helped to get Obama elected.

        She’s a shameful opportunist, nothing more.
        As to political relevancy, well I think you’re giving her to much credit, she never had any as it was all fake.

        • HonestDebate1

          What BS, she did not resign during the general election, it was after, and she had no choice. But forget that, why no criticism of Obama who resigned after two years in the Senate?

          • jefe68

            You left out the reason she resigned. 

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin

            The reason Barack Obama resigned, well he was the president-elect. Kind of left that out.

            This sums up Palin perfectly. 

            “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.” ― Groucho Marx

            “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.” ― Groucho Marx

          • HonestDebate1

            She had no choice. Everybody and their brother was suing her for this and alleging that. Nothing turned out to be true. 

            Obama ran for Senate so he could run for President. 

          • jefe68

            According to you.
            She ran a corrupt administration and the state changed the ethic rule for the governorship due her shenanigans.

            So let me unpack your comment. It seems that what you’re saying is that Sarah Palin’s use of her political office to forward her political ambitions was OK but Obama’s was not.

            You would do weel as a member of Palin’s new party, the Inane Party.

          • HonestDebate1

            Every single allegation was dismissed. She’s got elected by outing corruption. She’s a national treasure.

          • jefe68

            That’s hilarious.
            She’s a national disgracemore like it.

          • HonestDebate1

            Every single one.

    • HonestDebate1

      Gotta love Sarah!

      • disqus_fw2Bu1dEsd

        At best that would be polygamy–at worst, beastiality.

        • StilllHere

          Says more about you than anythingelse.

    • hennorama

      Mrs. Palin can make any empty idle threats she likes regarding a new political party precisely because she knows that’s exactly what they are – empty idle threats, which will amount to absolutely nothing.

      Mrs. Palin is nothing but a media huckster, popping off now and again in order to drive some added traffic to her overseers’ media properties.

      Quoting Macbeth: “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

  • C LeFay

    Can’t listen to the show.   Why?   The new streaming format.   It’s bad enough that it doesn’t have a download link- so I’m tied to the computer if I choose to listen -but the link doesn’t work for me in far-off Istanbul.   Earlier in the week with Soundcloud, no problem- now, nothing.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Did you try to download? They’re a bit hidden, the RSS page is http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=510053

      • C LeFay

        Perfect!   Thanks much!

      • brettmet

        It’s not working for me.  That link just took me to a page from which I selected this show, and then it started playing on my laptop.  I, too, would like to be able to download it to my MP3 player, as I’m using a very limited (and inexpensive) laptop computer that can’t do much.

    • donniethebrasco

      There are more people listening to this show is Sub-Saharan Africa than in the US.

  • Coastghost

    Enviromaniacs, take note: President Obama is announcing plans to aggravate global warming even further by “gifting” sub-Saharan Africa with its own dependable power grid, which I’m almost willing to bet will not be powered chiefly by wind and solar sources. (NPR and WBUR will now expend considerable electricity resources here explaining to us why this project won’t REALLY contribute much in the way of ozone depletion or carbon emissions.) –so Obama is wishy-washy on the Keystone Pipeline, but he’s all gung-ho for transplanting the Tennessee Valley Authority to Tanzania? Stay tuned . . . .

    • 1Brett1

      “…his [Obama's] neo-paternalistic promulgation of homosexualism in Senegal…”

      I see an amateur, weekend thesis/dissertation project for schitz-n-giggles in them there words, laddie. Maybe even a submission to the Lyndon LaRouche Foundation simply for him to send you a souvenir 8×10 glossy (and, hey, wouldn’t that be worth the effort in and of itself?!).

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    you better learn spanish

  • 1Brett1
    • donniethebrasco

      Forget about fighting for the rights of being allowed to have an abortion.

      This is about having the people pay for abortions.  Kermit Goznell made millions from government paid abortions.

      • jefe68

        Does your mother know you are doing this?

      • 1Brett1

        “This is about having the people pay for abortions…”

        Naw, that was about three anti-abortion movements ago; you’re behind the times. You really need to get out more. Conservatives are chipping away at all of Roe v. Wade, little by little (or, in many cases, more by more).

      • Ray in VT

        So that is why conservatives throughout the land are working tirelessly to restrict access by closing down places where abortions can be obtained, why week specific bans are being enacted and unnecessary procedures as being required?  Who knew.

    • pete18

      Here’s the difference, pro-choice advocates believe the rights of one person is involved with a pregnancy, pro-lifer’s believe that there are at least two.

      • jefe68

        Rubbish. After the child is born from what I see is the pro-lifer could not give a rats ass about the kid. Especially if they are poor.

        • pete18

          Nice lefty talking point but it is not true nor is it relevant. It only works if you define giving a “rat’s ass about poor kids” as supporting every government program stipulated for the poor no matter how wasteful, harmful or ineffective. Conservatives support safety nets but they see much of the welfare state enacted over the last three decades as being very destructive to families and kids. Many were influenced by the very honorable and famous democrat Senator,  Daniel Patrick Moynhan and his research on the negative impact of the welfare state on the poor family, particularly inner city blacks. You may not agree with any of that but that it is the motivation behind much of the conservative philosophy.

          Even if your silly caricature were true that no conservatives cared about what happened to kids after they were born, it would not negate the moral position that if you define the fetus as a life then it deserves protection under the law. This would be no different then anyone who supported taking a child away from an abusive parent and then never did anything to help that child after removing him from harm. The support for keeping the child from being abused or murdered would still be just and moral.

          I’m not trying to talk you out of your position on abortion, I’m only pointing out that it is quite reasonable to come to the position that the fetus is a living being (ask any pregnant mom who is keeping her child how she defines what’s in her body after seeing  a five-month sonogram) and if you do come to that conclusion then it would also be very reasonable to want to protect that life even if the mother felt differently. This would be no different than the state talking a child away from a parent who was abusing a child. The parent’s rights or desires are not absolute when another person is involved.

  • Steve__T

    Out of the comments of Honest Greggg Smith Debator1
    who says hes not a racist.

     People expect me to be able to obtain an ID because they expect me not
    to be a felon. They expect me to speak proper english. They expect me to
    pay my way through life. They expect me to refrain from using racial
    slurs. They expect me to be responsible. They expect me to have a clue
    as to how to cast a vote. They expect me to be clean and articulate.
     Do you honestly expect the above out of blacks to the same degree as whites?

  • HonestDebate1

    France, Germany and the entire EU are incensed at Obama for spying on them. The foreign relations disaster continues.

    • StilllHere

      IRS, AP, NSA, … I’m having trouble keeping up with the latest on all the Obama scandals.  No dress stain, but still, what a disaster!

      • jefe68

        troll.

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – two points:

      1. Only “low information voters,” the naïve, and the ignorant take what you wrote seriously. Every nation with an intelligence service conducts intelligence gathering operations, and the public “outrage” is all for show.

      2. It’s hilarious that xenophobes now claim to care about the opinions of “France, Germany and the entire EU.” What a crock.

      • jefe68

        It’s interesting how little critical thinking this guy does, astonishing really.

        • HonestDebate1

          If you want an example of zero critical thinking look at Henny’s comment above and how it has nothing to do with what I wrote. But then again it was a reply to Gregg Smith not me. Otherwise I would have replied.

  • pete18

    For those who predicted that enacting the sequester would be the end of humanity and believe cutting government will cause nothing but pain: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/they-said-the-sequester-would-be-scary-mostly-they-were-wrong/2013/06/30/73bdbbfc-da7a-11e2-8ed8-7adf8eba6e9a_story.html

    • jefe68

      Did you read the article? Or just the headline.
      Because if you did you would not have posted the BS lede.

      • pete18

         Read the whole thing, what do you think is BS?

        • jefe68

          That you left out it’s to early to tell with some programs, such as SNAP, which has been cut anyway.
          That Congress found ways to keep some programs funded. 

    • StilllHere

      Exactly, peter cried wolf and no wolf showed up.  This is a clear indication that taxes are too high and the government too large by far.  We should start taking more out until things get difficult. 95% of the American public cannot tell that anything has changed since 4 months ago.  I’m sure we’ll hear from those dependent on government waste, fraud and abuse.

    • hennorama

      When one clicks through to “Which sequester predictions are coming true?”, the details provide evidence of the mixed and unclear results that the authors wrote about:

      “So many predictions fell short because, in recent months, the administration and Congress did what was supposed to be impossible: They undid many of sequestration’s scariest reductions. In the process, this supposedly ironclad budget cut — ostensibly immune to political maneuvering — became a symbol of the reality that nothing in Washington is beyond politics.”

      “In some cases, politicians transferred cuts from high value programs to lower-value ones. Employee travel was limited. Maintenance deferred.”

      See:
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/tracking-the-predicted-sequester-impacts/2013/06/26/8cd5cffc-deb3-11e2-b2d4-ea6d8f477a01_graphic.html

      In other words, it was not that the predictions were not accurate, but that Congress acted to appropriate ADDITIONAL funding, and that administrators and others took actions to move money around, etc.

      For example:

      “Congress transferred $55 million in new money to the USDA’s inspection service…” (This bill included an anonymously added provision, a “biotech rider” authorizing commercial cultivation and sale of a genetically engineered crop even in the event of instances where a court vacated USDA approval.)

      “…Congress provided enough money to cover all needs.”

      “An appropriation from Congress allowed the Navy to maintain full operations in the Pacific for now.”

      “Congress passed a law that allowed the transfer of $253 million …”

      • pete18

         

         

        If they are transferring money from one place to another to prevent problems that still proves the point. I think the examples from the article listed
        below are much more telling than the instances of the other political
        maneuvering you described.  There is
        always waste in any organized financial enterprise, this is human nature. The
        difference between the market and government is that the market has counter
        balances that will always force efficiencies onto a structure. Most market
        situations have competition and cannot survive too much waste or
        ineffectiveness. Government has very little accountability or built in push
        back. It’s too easy for the government to go back to the well of the taxpayer
        again and again. Departments are rewarded for spending their budgets, rather
        than finding savings. Rarely are the evaluated by how effective a job they are
        doing.

        Pressure via the voter is diffused, delayed
        and indirect. The only way you can get a department to sent 350 scientists to a
        conference rather than 469, or cut back on a duplicate grant that didn’t need
        funding is to give government that counter balance (IE cut back it’s
        funding).  Every single department has
        this type of waste and the only way any of them will get creatively efficient
        is when there is pressure on them to adapt. The government could easily survive
        a 5 to 10% cut back in its budget without causing any real harm. The sequester
        is a small example of why that is so.

         

        “At the U.S. Geological Survey, for instance,
        officials had said they would have to shut off 350 gauges that provide crucial
        predictions of impending floods. They didn’t. The real number is less than 90.
        What was cut instead?

        For one thing, $2.7 million in conference
        expenses have been chopped since February.

        “That’s where science gets done, at those
        meetings. That’s where you present your preliminary results,” said Jerad Bales,
        the agency’s chief scientist for water. One example: Bales said the government
        spends about $1,000 per scientist who goes to an annual conference in San
        Francisco.

        Last
        time, it sent 469 scientists. The attendance for this fall’s conference has not
        been set, but Bales guessed it would be more like 350, for a cost of $350,000.
        “We are not investing in the future,” Bales said.

         

        —————————————————————————————–

        At
        the Department of Homeland Security, officials had predicted that there would
        be insufficient space to hold detained illegal immigrants. It was one of four
        Homeland Security predictions that didn’t come true; another one, about
        cutbacks at the Coast Guard, did.

        What was cut instead? Some things that hurt:
        Maintenance. Employee bonuses. Hiring.

        And some things that didn’t.

        The department, for example, cut $7.8 million
        for a grant program that helped prepare for disasters. But it told Congress
        that this program had $36 million waiting in the bank, “neither dedicated to a
        project nor an activity.” And it said the program was duplicative, anyway.
        Other federal programs were already doing the same thing. “There is no impact
        from this reduction because of the duplication,” the department told Congress.

        ——————————————————————————————-

         

        At
        the Federal Aviation Administration, Congress found a similarly painless cut.
        Furloughs were looming for air-traffic controllers. Travel delays were expected
        to pile up.

        But they didn’t. Congress prevented
        the furloughs by substituting another “cut.” It took $253 million from
        the FAA’s Airport Improvement Program, which gives grants to airports (among
        the longtime recipients: Lake
        Murray State Park Airport in Oklahoma, which was eligible for $150,000 per
        year, despite averaging one takeoff and one landing per week).

        But the FAA’s loss wasn’t as bad as it
        sounds: The grantees that were entitled to this money had already told the
        government they didn’t need it this year. They
        didn’t have anything immediate to spend it on. “

         

         

    • HonestDebate1

      The idea a $15 billion increase in spending spelled disaster and is laughably called austerity shows how far Obama has taken us down. Many people have no idea, they are right where Obama wants them.

  • JCP13

    I haven’t been able to access any of the new-design audios….?

  • HonestDebate1

    The Zimmerman trial seems to confirm what I’ve always thought, the tragedy was not about race.

    • OnPointComments

      I agree.  Since viewing some of the George Zimmerman trial, based on the testimony so far, I find his version of what happened to be credible. 

      • HonestDebate1

        The facts don’t matter to many who are just making up their own narrative. What actually happened is of little interest, it’s all about assigning dastardly intentions to everyone who has a different view. I don’t think many realize how manipulated they are by the media. They get worked up over what the media tells them to get worked up over.

        • jefe68

          What do you call what you’re doing here?
          You are creating your own narrative;“vigilante racist stalking a skittle eating kid appears to be false”

          Has it ever occurred to you that if Zimmerman had not had a gun, or if he had simply listened to the dispatcher not to engage Martin that this trial would not be happening? Has it?

          THis man created the crime, he was the one who shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was the one who engaged Martin, not the other way around.  

          You are creating a narrative based on nothing short of conjecture and for wishing for an outcome to suit your beliefe system. 
          Your comment is disingenuous as is this one; “assigning dastardly intentions to everyone who has a different view”…

          Which is just what you do day in and day out.

          • HonestDebate1

            I deny the charge, I did not create the narrative. 

            Zimmerman did have a gun and he did leave his car, neither of which is illegal. What good does it do to make things up?

            According to testimony it was Martin who engaged Zimmerman. Maybe that is not true but you are ignoring sworn testimony in favor of the speculative narrative. And we don’t yet know if Zimmerman committed crime. It’s amazing how many people seem to have their mind made up. I suspect it’s all because of skin color.Reading some of these comments it seems to me some, including you, are assigning agendas to me and others. I have no idea what these imaginary agenda’s are.

          • 1Brett1

            “According to testimony it was Martin who engaged Zimmerman.”

            Yeah, statements that Zimmerman made to police.

             Zimmerman also lied to the judge /court during his bond hearing, so there’s that.

            Of commentators on this forum, who has his/her mind made up any more or less than you?

  • HonestDebate1

    God (or Allah) bless the Egyptians. Obama is sitting on the sidelines again, just like 2009 in Iran. Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood go to guy, is his man.

  • 1Brett1

    The relationship between Trayvon Martin’s death and the death of young black people in, say, Chicago exists in some people’s minds only, people who seem to wish making all black violence into something racial, people who wish to use the George Zimmerman trial as some sort of example of persecution against non-blacks. Some think Zimmerman acted on racially-motivated impulses; some think Zimmerman acted purely in self-defense and it was Martin who held racially-motivated feelings that fueled his behavior and the confrontation; some are not sure and concede that we will probably never know. Some use this tragedy opportunistically to further a socio-political agenda of racial violence against whites or that blacks are given a pass for their behaviors. Some also use this tragedy opportunistically to further fuel an agenda against white bigotry, whether justified or not. 

    • hennorama

      Coincidentally:

      “Chicago police tout lowest homicide numbers since 1965”

      FTA:

      “Six months after Chicago ended a bloody 2012 with more than 500 slayings, police Superintendent Garry McCarthy on Monday delivered some encouraging news about the homicide number: It’s at its lowest total in nearly half a century.

      “To date, we’ve had fewer shootings than we had in recent years, and fewer murders than in any year since 1965,” McCarthy said during a news conference at a West Side police station.

      “That number of slayings, 184, is the lowest total Chicago police have reported to the FBI for the first half of a year since reporting 180 in 1965, according to official Police Department statistics.”

      There may be a bit of “cooking the books” here, though. Also FTA:

      “But internal department data obtained by the Tribune show an identical number of people were slain in Chicago during the first six months of 2013 and 2011 — 188.

      “The difference between the figures is that the official Chicago police tally to the FBI did not include four killings — at least three of which took place within city limits on expressways patrolled by the state police. The comparable figure for the first half of 2011 could not be tabulated.”

      Regardless of whether the number is “the lowest since 1965” or not, it’s significantly lower than in 2012.

      Of course, ANY reduction is good news.

      Source:
      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-homicides-first-half-20130702,0,3927645.story

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s like saying a 7.5% unemployment rate is good news because it’s not 8%. Or that 1% GDP is good news because it’s not a recession. 

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – TYFYR.

          Apologies if your delicate sensibilities are offended by an expression that any reduction in homicide could possibly be described as “good news.”

          Feel free to express your counterpoints on the topic, without trying to change the subject. Please also feel free to point out the relevance of either the unemployment rate or GDP when the topic is homicide statistics in Chicago.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – one notes your edited comment:

          “[edit] Anyone who characterizes 184 deaths as good news needs help. But I suppose as long as it’s backs preying on blacks or blacks preying on whites, few care.”

          Talk about someone who “needs help” ….

          One fails to understand your complaint about a reduction in the number of homicides in Chicago.

          One fails to understand your focus on race rather than the reduction in the number of homicides in Chicago.

          Your words imply a need for remedial reading comprehension tutelage.

          Your demonstrated lack of reading comprehension perhaps explains a great deal about your repeating your bold-faced lie about “the fact whites are far more likely to be victims of black violence than vice versa” – you perhaps don’t comprehend any data that you read.

          ———-

          I am not one “who characterizes 184 deaths as good news.”

          I never “characterize[d] 184 deaths as good news.”

          The “good news” referred to was the fact that the number of homicides in the first half of 2013 was lower than in 2012. The data on this reduction was in the article, but was not quoted in my post:

          “Through the first six months of 2013, homicides decreased by close to 30 percent compared with a year ago.”
          My entire post was quoted from a Chicago Tribune article titled “Chicago police tout lowest homicide numbers since 1965,” except for the following:

          “There may be a bit of “cooking the books” here, though. Also FTA:

          “Regardless of whether the number is “the lowest since 1965” or not, it’s significantly lower than in 2012.”

          “Of course, ANY reduction is good news.”

          If you cannot comprehend the meaning of “ANY reduction is good news,” then YOU, “need help,” sir.

          See again:
          http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-homicides-first-half-20130702,0,3927645.story

  • 1Brett1

    There are discrepancies and inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s account of what transpired in the tragedy that killed Trayvon Martin.

    1) Zimmerman said that after he shot Martin (who supposedly was on top of him), Martin said, “you got me,” and either slumped off Zimmerman or Zimmerman pushed him off (Zimmerman said he couldn’t remember which). Zimmerman said he then pushed Martin on Martin’s stomach and spread his arms out holding down Martin’s hands  and arms splayed out from his side trying to restrain Martin until police arrived (Martin was actually dead at this point). When the police showed up just a minute or two later, Martin was on his stomach (like Zimmerman said) but his arms and hands were underneath his body not splayed out to his side. 

    2) Zimmerman said he didn’t get out of his vehicle to pursue Martin but to get a street name and address for the dispatcher, yet he had lived in the small enclave for several years, was the head of the neighborhood watch and walked his dog several times every day around the enclave. Does he expect people to believe he didn’t know what street he was on (there are only three streets in the enclave…please)? He could have backed his vehicle a half block to see the name of the street, but instead he got out of his vehicle and went in the direction of Martin (when it would have been easier and faster to go away from the direction Martin supposedly took off in to get a street name and address) on a sidewalk through back and side yards (and where he said he saw Martin disappear into), yet he said he was scared. Scared enough to follow where Martin went?
     
    3) He said in an interview on the same night as the shooting that the dispatcher had asked him to go see where Martin was going so he could tell police, yet the dispatcher’s transcript shows Zimmerman was told NOT to pursue Martin.

    4) He said Martin  suddenly jumped out from the bushes, but there were no bushes. Zimmerman said Martin said, “you gotta problem, homey?” Then said, “you gotta problem now” and punched him knocking him over on his back. 

    5) In the interview the night of the shooting, and in the phone with the police to report Martin (in which he said Martin was up to no good, but was actually just walking), Zimmerman called Martin a “suspect” several times, and he said “these guys” get away all the time, etc. What was it about Martin that was suspicious? That he was walking? Carrying a bottle of tea and bag of Skittles? That he was wearing a hoodie? That he was black walking in the neighborhood? 

    6) Zimmerman said Martin said, “you’re gonna die tonight, m*ther f**ker!” after Martin supposedly jumped out from the bushes (which didn’t exist). He also said earlier Martin circled Zimmerman’s vehicle (with it running and the headlights on) and stared Zimmerman down then disappeared down the sidewalk into the night. Martin then went in the same direction (to supposedly get a street name and address), but also said he was scared. Zimmerman said that in the physical tussle between the two of them, his jacket got lifted up exposing his gun. He said Martin went for his gun and then Zimmerman pulled it out and shot Martin.  

    Sounds as though Zimmerman made up needing to get a street address to cover up for pursuing Martin. Zimmerman’s version of events don’t sound very plausible; they sound altered to justify his shooting Martin. Zimmerman contradicted himself between the interview at midnight the night of the shooting and the next morning when he took the investigating cop around the neighborhood to establish how the whole thing unfolded. 

    Second degree murder might be difficult to prove, and Zimmerman may very well walk. I believe Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, initially because he thought Martin looked like a thief or was up to no good; it’s difficult to say why Zimmerman looked at Martin as some kind of “suspect,” though. Zimmerman later pursued Martin (getting out of his vehicle) because he didn’t want Martin to “get away.” There was a scuffle of some kind (it probably will never be known who initiated the scuffle), and Zimmerman either got scared or got mad, which is why he shot Martin. Zimmerman could simply have shot Martin because Martin hit him or because Martin said intimidating things to him. 1) He shouldn’t have considered Martin a “suspect,”  and at the very least should have just let police handle it. 2) He shouldn’t have later gotten out of his vehicle and gone after Martin. If he had adhered to these two reasonable actions there would have been no confrontation and no shooting. Manslaughter seems to be more appropriate. A depraved heart or whatever needs to be proven for second degree murder can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, at least not with the evidence presented so far. 

    Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s lead defense lawyer, is very skilled. He seems to have more skill than anyone on the prosecution team. He has successfully been chipping away at Zimmerman’s inconsistencies and has laid a good foundation to explain them away. This will help compensate for Zimmerman not appearing on the witness stand, something he definitely should NOT do. There is still a long way to go for the prosecution. Can they make their case strong enough to overcome any reasonable doubt? I’m thinking not…I don’t know if Zimmerman can be convicted on lesser charges if 2nd degree murder can;t be proven; I don’t know enough about Florida law.

    • hennorama

      The
      Martin/Zimmerman tragedy can be summarized thusly:

      On
      a rainy Florida night, a wannabe cop, armed with a concealed handgun,
      is driving to the grocery store. He spots, watches, and follows a
      teenager whose head is covered by the hood of his sweatshirt..

      Wannabe
      cop finds teenager to be suspicious, and calls police non-emergency
      number to report his suspicions. Police tell wannabe cop that they
      do not need him to follow teenager.

      Wannabe
      cop exits his vehicle. A confrontation between armed wannabe cop and
      the teenager ensues, followed by a physical fight, during which armed
      wannabe cop fires his handgun, fatally wounding teenager.

      Wannabe
      cop is questioned by police and then released without charge after
      wannabe cop claims self-defense as justification for killing unarmed
      teenager.

      Dead
      teenager’s parents call a press conference to discuss the incident,
      saying “’We feel justice hasn’t been served.“

      Attorneys,
      outside groups, politicians and the media pick up the story, and the
      circus begins in earnest.

      Wannabe
      cop is later arrested and charged with second-degree murder, and is
      currently on trial.

      ——

      Only
      George Zimmerman knows what actually happened on that rainy Florida
      night, and Zimmerman himself has told police “To be honest with
      you, I have a bad memory anyway,” and that he has ADHD and takes
      medication for it. He may not actually remember.

      One
      thing’s pretty certain, though – without the handgun, Trayvon
      Martin would likely still be alive, and we likely would never have
      heard of either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

      Sources:

      http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting

      http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-interactive-timeline-key-events-in-the-trayvon-martingeorge-zimmerman-case-20130611,0,7986191.htmlpage

      • OnPointComments

        You left out some parts.  A neighborhood had been terrorized.  There had been numerous burglaries, and at least one home invasion and thwarted attack of a mother and child who were home alone.  The residents are so concerned that they have a meeting and form a Neighborhood Watch, and are told by the police to report anything suspicious.  Someone is killed, the police investigate and intially find Zimmerman’s story to be credible.  The cirus begins, and Zimmerman is charged with second degree murder.
         
        We can speculate that without the handgun, Martin would likely still be alive, or that without the handgun, Zimmerman would likely have been killed by Martin, but neither of those scenarios occured.  Personally, based on the testimony so far, I find Zimmerman’s version of what happened to be plausible.
         
        If I recounted the events and referred to George Zimmerman as a “concerned resident,” and Martin as a “wannabe thug,” would you perceive that I had a bias?  Should I perceive your bias by your reference to the “wannabe cop?”

        • HonestDebate1

          That was also my understanding. I have never heard that Zimmerman just happened to be going to the grocery store and happened to have a gun.

        • hennorama

          OPC – TY for your response.

          As indicated, the post was a summary and therefore not every detail is included, by definition.

          If you dispute anything in the account, please feel free to delineate your objections. If you feel that “wannabe cop” is an inaccurate description of Zimmerman, please provide your arguments.

          Zimmerman’s own words, from an application to join a program sponsored by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office that allows people to become more familiar with police work:

          “I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard as I hope to one day become one.”

          Zimmerman had applied to become a police officer.

          Zimmerman was a criminal justice student at Seminole State College at the time of the incident.

          “Wannabe cop” is a factually accurate description based on the above, especially based on Zimmerman’s own words.

          See:
          http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-cop-application-20130604,0,7772961.story

          If you can find similar evidence that Trayvon Martin was a “wannabe thug,” including some of his own words, please do so, then report your findings.

          • HonestDebate1
          • 1Brett1

            I guess that means you feel Zimmerman was justified in killing Martin because Martin had smoked weed or had gotten into fights in his life? (By the way, all of which were unknown to Zimmerman). Perhaps you are saying it was justified presuming Martin was a thug because he might have looked like one? If so, what was it that made him look like a dope smoking, fighting thug? His hoodie? His skin color? What, pray tell, are you trying to say with your ostensible non sequitur to hennorama’s comment?Edit
            Reply0 min

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – Imagine one’s reluctance to click on any unexplained links, especially considering the source.

          • 1Brett1

            The video is a character assassination hit piece on Trayvon Martin…but Gregg’s mind is not made up, he has no racial opinions toward Trayvon Martin.

          • OnPointComments

            If you say that when you wrote “wannabe cop” you meant it to be merely descriptive, and you didn’t believe that your use of the term had any derogatory connotations, I’ll believe you.  But I doubt that most readers would infer that “wannabe cop” is not derogatory.
             
            “Circuit Judge Debra Nelson…ruled that lawyers can’t mention Trayvon’s school records, past fights, marijuana use, ownership of gold teeth, or any photos or text messages found on the teen’s cellphone.”
             
            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/05/28/trayvon-martin-testimony-trial/2365367/ 
             
            “Jury’s look into Trayvon Martin’s past has its limits”
             “Florida Circuit Judge Debra Nelson has declared a number of items off-limits…they include a photo in which Martin shows his gold teeth to the camera while sticking up his middle fingers; school records, which include a suspension from his Miami high school…for possessing a baggie with marijuana residue; texts and photos from Martin’s cellphone that refer to or show firearms. “U gotta gun?” reads a text from Martin’s phone, sent eight days before his death. The defense cited a photo of a hand holding a gun, taken with Martin’s phone, and another picture of a gun on a bed; texts with marijuana references, and photos that show Martin blowing smoke and what appear to be marijuana plants; texts and video that suggest that Martin was involved in organized fights.”
             
            http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18832092-jurys-look-into-trayvon-martins-past-has-its-limits?lite

          • HonestDebate1

            Be careful OPC, the next thing you know citing the facts will lead others to accuse you of having your mind made up that Zimmerman was justified because Trayvon smoked pot…or something.

            There’s no room for sober assessments here, only the spoon-fed narrative. 

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY again for your response.

            If you’d prefer the more neutral “criminal justice student” over “wannabe cop” I’d have no objection.

            While “wannabe cop” may have some negative connotation, it is indeed accurate, is it not? Zimmerman, by both word and action, expressed his desire to be a police officer, on more than one occasion. He had failed to do so, for unknown reasons, but seemed to be working to improve his chances, as evidenced by his studies.

            m-w.com defines “wannabe” as follows:

            “Definition of WANNABE

            1: a person who wants or aspires to be someone or something else or who tries to look or act like someone else
            2: something (as a company, city, or product) intended to rival another of its kind that has been successful; especially : one for which hopes have failed or are likely to fail”

            m-w.com defines “thug” as follows:

            “Definition of THUG

            : a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough”

            Let’s, for the sake of argument only, say that all of the following, which were implied by your post, were true about Trayvon Martin before he was shot and killed:

            he owned and wore gold teeth
            he “flipped the bird” on occasion
            he was suspended from school for possessing drug residue
            he had photos of a firearm or firearms
            he talked about firearms
            he smoked marijuana at least once
            he had seen marijuana plants
            he may have been involved in at least one fistfight

            With the possible exceptions of the gold teeth and the school suspension, one would expect all of the above could apply to a considerable percentage of male high school students in the state of Florida, perhaps even a majority of said students.

            Right? One might even describe the above, again with the aforementioned possible exceptions, as “typical teen male behaviors.”

            That leaves them as interesting but not probative.

            Which of course is why the defense released them to the public, in an effort to influence potential jurors before trail.

            Again, no one knows what actually happened. I certainly make no claims about the events involved, nor of guilt, innocence or anything in between.

            But I do believe that had there been no handgun involved, both Martin and Zimmerman would still be alive, well, and living their lives in anonymity.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s not helpful to call Zimmerman a wannabe cop, OPC is right, it shows your bias. It is also not helpful to call Trayvon a wannabe thug even though he complained on Facebook that some guy he beat up didn’t bleed enough for his taste. You asked OPC for the equivalent and I gave it to you. But it all clouds the issue.

            I don’t know why you even felt the need to recharacterize the tale though your lens. I have been very careful to not speculate and I would suggest it’s a good idea to let the facts emerge.

            A dictionary definition of wannabe has no relevance.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – TY for your opinion. Your disdain for dictionary definitions is well known.

            One notes you did not dispute that Zimmerman is indeed a “wannabe cop”, and instead made some claim about Martin.

            One notes also that I began my post to OPC by writing “If you’d prefer the more neutral ‘criminal justice student’ over ‘wannabe cop’ I’d have no objection.”

            I have no idea what you mean by “You asked OPC for the equivalent and I gave it to you,” unless you are referring to your unexplained “naked” link. I do not click on such things, as the lack of explanation implies the person posting such links is either lazy or does not consider the link significant enough to take the time to present it with explanation or commentary.

            I have no bias for or against Mr. Zimmerman, nor for or against Mr. Martin. Zimmerman seems to be an earnest man who feels justified in his actions. Martin by all evidence seems to have been a mostly typical, if somewhat troubled teenager.

            The only “speculation” expressed is my view that, absent the presence of Zimmerman’s handgun, both Martin and Zimmerman would still be alive, well, and living their lives in anonymity.

            Instead, one young man is dead and buried, and another is on trial, facing the potential of life in prison.

          • OnPointComments

            I’d prefer the more neutral “criminal justice student” over “wannabe cop;” one carries a more positive connotation than the other. 
             
            I disagree with your premise that Martin’s social media commentary is typical of male teens.  I personally don’t know anyone of any age, white or black, who has posted comments as vile as the ones authored by Martin.  Having just reviewed some of his comments, do I think it is possible that Martin was the aggressor?  Absolutely.  But, as you said, no one knows what actually happened, and I too make no claims about the events involved, nor of guilt, innocence or anything in between.  And as I said, based on the testimony so far, Zimmerman’s story appears plausible to me.

          • hennorama

            OPC – TY again for your response, and fair enough as to ‘criminal justice student” vs. “wannabe cop.”

            I have no basis to comment about what you described as “Martin’s social media commentary” as I have not read it, and really have little interest in it, as it would not be probative. (Unless of course he said something like “I hold [thugs] in the highest regard as I hope to one day become one.”)

            I also have no reason to doubt your description(s).

            However, I wasn’t discussing “Martin’s social media commentary” in my post, but rather a list of suppositions about Martin, the vast majority of which seem not atypical of male teenagers – fascination with firearms, use of marijuana, disrespect of authority, possible fighting, etc.

            As I wrote to another forum member, Zimmerman seems to be an earnest man who feels justified in his actions. And Martin by all evidence seems to have been a mostly typical, if somewhat troubled teenager.

            Unfortunately, one is now dead and buried, and the other faces the possibility of life in prison. I can’t help but think neither of those things would be true but for the presence of Zimmerman’s handgun.

          • HonestDebate1

            You were the one who injected wannabe cop which is irrelevant. The dictionary definition of wannabe is even more irrelevant as much as I love dictionaries and definitions. And I don’t like “criminal justice student either”. It seems to me you are trying to imply vigilantism. And you exhibit no interest in Trayvon clearly being a wannabe thug. BTW, youtube is safe, I don’t buy the excuse. Neither OPC nor I have 

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – putting aside the placement of your post, and giving you the benefit of the doubt as much as possible, your continued claim of “bias” on my part is silly, as I have no attachment to the term “wannabe cop,” as indicated in responses to both OPC’s posts and your posts. I have neither speculated nor editorialized, despite your claims.

            One notes again that you do not dispute that Zimmerman is a “wannabe cop,” as the case for Zimmerman’s wanting to be a police officer is well-documented, in both his words and his actions.

            Instead, you make a claim of “Trayvon clearly being a wannabe thug.”

            Please present your case, sir. Lay out your evidence.

            Your comment “Blaming the gun is silly” is a mischaracterization of my comments (not that one is surprised by such mischaracterization on your part, of course). I never “blamed the gun.” Zimmerman fired his handgun consciously and purposefully, according to his own words. He killed Martin.

            However, it’s difficult to argue that had Zimmerman not been armed, the outcome would have been far different, and that Martin and Zimmerman would both be alive today. Zimmerman is shorter than Martin was, but outweighed him by a significant amount. (Records show Zimmerman’s height as 5′8″; and his weight at 200 lb on the Sanford PD Offense Report for the night of the shooting. The autopsy showed Martin’s height and weight as 5 ft 11 in and 158 pounds.) Reports also indicate Zimmerman had frequent MMA-style training, and that Martin played football when he was younger, meaning neither was a stranger to physical confrontations..

            On paper, a pretty even match. The handgun was the difference.

            As to your claim about Zimmerman’s so-called “significant bodily harm” – please. I’ve seen far worse injuries during a high school girls’ soccer match. One also recalls Louisville basketball player Kevin Ware breaking his leg during an NCAA tournament game. THAT was “significant bodily harm,” sir.

            As to your continued non sequitur citations of the Kevin Shifflett case – one must note your criticism of others for things that are “irrelevant.” Not to mention your added speculation and “what if” suppositions, given that you criticized me for things you described as “irrelevant,” and that you have implied that I have “speculated”

            Talk about not making sense.

        • 1Brett1

          Zimmerman DID characterize Martin as “suspect” to police when he called the non-emergency number and in subsequent interviews after the killing of Martin that same evening and the next day. Should we assume Zimmerman had a bias? 

          Zimmerman DID pursue Martin by getting out of his vehicle and going in Martin’s direction. He used police language during his phone contact with police, eg., “suspect,” “discharged firearm,” “holstered firearm,” “shot suspect,” etc. Zimmerman DID carry a weapon and pursued a “suspect,” something inconsistent with recommendations from Neighborhood Watch organizations. 

          I would say Zimmerman behaved more like a “wannabe cop” than “Martin acted like a “suspect” (walking home in the rain with an ice tea and a bag of Skittles). 

          Your characterization of the Neighborhood Watch formation is incorrect; the formation was initiated by George Zimmerman.

          Zimmerman, by the way, had called police 46 times since living in the Twin Lakes community, reasons ranging from a neighbor’s garage door being open to children playing in the street to a pothole in the street (interestingly the same street he said he couldn’t remember the name of, of which there were only three in that community). Zimmerman had also made several calls over the years about black people, “suspicious” people in the community. Also, one of the burglaries you mentioned was committed by a neighbor (the one where a kitchen window was broken and a laptop was stolen). All of that said, there was a feeling of concern about crime in that neighborhood; I don’t want to minimize the fear that Zimmerman (as well as the community as a whole) might have felt. 

          Another thing to note is that George Zimmerman was found to be lying to the judge/court during his bond hearing; that should not be overlooked.

      • HonestDebate1

        What’s with the wannabe cop thing? 

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – TY for your response.

          Zimmerman’s own words, from an application to join a program sponsored by the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office that allows people to become more familiar with police work:

          “I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard as I hope to one day become one.”

          Zimmerman had applied to become a police officer.

          Zimmerman was a criminal justice student at Seminole State College at the time of the incident.

          “Wannabe cop” is a factually accurate description based on the above, especially based on Zimmerman’s own words.

          See:
          http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-cop-application-20130604,0,7772961.story

    • hennorama

      1Brett1 – while prefacing this with the usual “I’m not an attorney” disclaimer, yes, “Zimmerman can [potentially] be convicted on lesser charges if 2nd degree murder can;t [sic] be proven.”

      According to Florida lawyer Richard Hornsby, under Florida law, “Manslaughter is a Category One lesser included offense for Second Degree Murder.”

      Hornsby cites his experience, including from a case in front of the same Judge (Debra Nelson) who is presiding in the Zimmerman case in his “blawg,” including significant potential limitations, here:

      http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2013/07/dont-believe-every-tweet-you-read/

  • 1Brett1

    If George Zimmerman had been arrested for assaulting a cop, also had a charge of domestic violence against him, how was he able to have a concealed-carry weapons license?

  • HonestDebate1

    During the same month (Feb. 2012) as the Trayvon tragedy these (to name a few) incidences occurred. 

    15 year old Albert Guyton was walking down the street with two friends.

    “Guyton was struck nearly a dozen times, including in the neck, chest and head, police said.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-boy-15-shot-dead-in-marquette-park-neighborhood-20120228,0,2171169.story
    —–
    “Police are searching for the gunman who opened fire in the vestibule of a Washington Park apartment building on the South Side, killing a 15-year-old boy and wounding three other people, including a 14-year-old boy.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-cops-child-reportedly-among-victims-shot-on-south-side-20120227,0,2837606.story
    —–
    “Saturday night, a 17-year-old boy died after being shot about 8 p.m. on the 3400 block of Monticello Avenue in the Avondale neighborhood.Police responded to a shots fired call on Monticello and learned the boy had been dropped off at Our Lady of the Resurrection Medical Center, where he died, Chicago Police News Affairs Officer Ron Gaines said.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-3-shot-1-dead-on-south-and-northwest-sides-20120218,0,1805786.story
    ——

    http://homicides.redeyechicago.com/date/2012/2/

    • 1Brett1

      Those have to do with George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin how? I’d bet there were crimes committed all over the world during that month that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin…so what is your point?

  • 1Brett1

    DISQUS ERROR

  • 1Brett1

    Was Trayvon Martin actually the Hindu god Shiva with four arms? He, according to Zimmerman, was on top of Zimmerman, and had one hand covering Zimmerman’s nose and mouth while his other arm was sliding down Zimmerman’s torso, feeling Zimmerman for his gun. This would have left Zimmerman’s both arms free to fight back (which he didn’t, he simply drew his gun and shot Martin). It is important to also note that in one interview Zimmerman said Martin “went for” his gun. In another, Zimmerman said Martin “grabbed” his gun. Zimmerman’s ADHD medication doesn’t seem to be working very well for him (which, by the way, having a bad memory is not an associated symptom of ADHD, yet it has been used as an excuse by Zimmerman to explain away his inconsistencies and contradictions). 

  • HonestDebate1

    Suppose everything transpired the exact same way but Trayvon was white and Zimmerman was black. I don’t think it would have been a national story with the President weighing in and On Point doing shows on it. The trial would have garnered a big fat yawn. I suppose it’s somewhat speculative but not really. No one has heard of 8 year old Kevin Shifflett. It’s sad.

    • HonestDebate1

      I wonder if any liberal will own up to agreeing with my above comment. Maybe some think a white guy killing a black guy should be a bigger story. Commenter Jeffe has honestly owned up to thinking there should be different rules for different races regarding language. Maybe some don’t think it’s a big deal if a black kills a white out of racist rage because it is so much more likely to happen than the inverse and is somewhat justified because someones great grand dad was a slave or something. 

      I really can’t figure this out. What made this story so big? 

      • hennorama

        Keeping repeating and adding to your bold-faced lies, Gregg Smith.

        Your latest is “…  if a black kills a white out of racist rage … it is so much more likely to happen than the inverse…”

        That is a bold-faced lie, sir.

        • HonestDebate1

          The term is bald-faced, dork. And I never lie.

          • hennorama

            Same lie, different day.

            One would suggest you consult a dictionary, sir, but why waste the electrons?

          • 1Brett1

            Wrong again, douche bag! Choke on it:

            http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bal2.htm

          • jefe68

            Now, now. Temper, temper.

          • 1Brett1

            Sorry, jefe, I shouldn’t malign douche bags! 

          • hennorama

            Smith – the truly remarkable thing about your post is that when confronted about your lie, rather than immediately writing a disputation, the first thing you do is quibble about a term describing your lie.

            That says far more about you than I ever could, sir.

          • Ray in VT

            Come on, man.  You know that by any definition of the word one has to know that one is spreading a falsehood (or something).  One must only believe it, and one’s rear is covered.

          • hennorama

            Ray in VT – TY for the reminder of that oft-invoked delusion.

          • Ray in VT

            I am glad to be of service.

          • HonestDebate1

            Except it’s true.

          • Ray in VT

            Except that it’s not.  Check a dictionary.

          • 1Brett1

            In fact, “bold-faced” precedes”bald-faced” chronologically/historically.

          • HonestDebate1

            What I am saying is true is my claim that was called a “bold [sic]faced lie” But I infer you are talking about the definition of lie. It is impossible to lie if you don’t know you are lying by any definition. We’ve been through this. You even skipped the first definition and used the second if I recall. Lying must have an “intent to deceive”.It’s not rocket science.

          • Ray in VT

            Yes, we’ve been through it before, and as long as you insist upon rejecting the dictionary definitions with which you disagree, then we will keep having it.  Lying can merely be spreading a falsehood, perhaps knowingly, and given your penchant for repeating things which are clearly, and often commonly, known to be false, then yes, you are lying.  It is not rocket science.

          • HonestDebate1

            Merrium-
            1:
            to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive.

          • Ray in VT

            2: to create a false or misleading impression.As with other definitions, subsequent definitions do not depend upon previous ones.  So, for instance, under the other definitions of lie, 2:to be in a helpless or defenseless state does not depend upon 1a:to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position.  So to say that “by any definition” one has to know that one is lying is itself a lie, as other definitions do not require intent, and you, having knowledge of that, continue to promote that which is patently untrue, perhaps seeking to create a false impression.

          • HonestDebate1

            “to create” implies intent. I don’t want to look it up now but I posted 4 or 5 different sources of the definition the other day, they ALL said the same thing. I don’t understand your position and why you seem to be insisting a lie can be told without knowing you are lying. But you are clinging to it despite the definitions so I’ll ask it this way: what is the difference between a lie and being wrong?

          • Ray in VT

            One can simply be wrong, but if one continues to push a falsehood despite being exposed, or perhaps even reasonably being expected to have been exposed, to evidence to the contrary, then one can certainly be said to be a liar.  If one says that the battles that started the American Revolution happened in New Hampshire, then one is wrong, and one should probably know better.  However, were that person to repeat that multiple times over a period of time in which one could reasonably expect to be more correctly informed, then one could probably be considered to be a liar no matter how much they believe it.  

            I would like to see your sources, as I have posted links to several dictionary definitions which contradict your stated belief.  The fact is that there are dictionary definitions that say nothing about intent.  For instance, were one to say that by any definition one must know that one that one is lying in order to be a liar, and if that person has been repeatedly exposed to evidence to the contrary, and one yet continues to attempt to spread that falsehood, then I think that the definition that I cited fits.

          • jefe68

            Which why your such a sad, sad excuse for a human being.

          • HonestDebate1

            How many times would you suggest I let myself be called a liar or racist and remain silent?

          • 1Brett1

            187 times? 

      • 1Brett1

        That’s heinous!

    • 1Brett1

      Suppose Trayvon were a decorated Marine and Zimmerman were a fundamentalist Muslim? Suppose Trayvon were a southern white lady of fine antebellum lineage and Zimmerman were an escaped slave who had had sex with farm animals and we all lived in the deep South during Reconstruction? Suppose Trayvon were a 19th century London streetwalker who fought back and Zimmerman were a 19th century London physician who had a warped, traumatic, troubled past with women? Suppose Trayvon were an abused family dog and Zimmerman were a juvenile-delinquent sadist who tortured domestic pets? …I suppose it’s all somewhat speculative but not really. Would the limp-wristed, propagandist, liberal media and the socialist, Antichrist, soon-to-be impeached president (we all pray to our Limbaugh altar in the shack closet) be screaming “REPARATIONS NOW!”? Hmmmm?!

  • HonestDebate1

    So Obama has delayed the employer mandate until 2015. I suspect it’s all politics for the midterms. It’s killing jobs and will kill more once the mandate kicks in, it has to.

    But the real question is, on what authority can he unilaterally do this? Obamacare is the law of the land, approved by Congress and adjudicated but the SCOTUS. He can’t just change it up like he’s King just because people hate it and it’s killing jobs.

  • Ray in VT

    Who knew that it could get so bad!  Gangs of blacks roaming around, terrorizing white people.  Who’d have thought that one uppity, shucking and jiving guy could do so much to upset the races in America.  I’ve certainly never seen a guy from one ethnic group evoke so much negative sentiment from another.

    • HonestDebate1

      I don’t know what you mean by “uppity, shucking and jiving guy”. I’ve certainly never ever used those terms to describe Obama, if that’s what you mean.

      It’s the tolerance of the gangs of blacks preying on whites that bothers me most. I think it is born out of a reluctance to face the truth. I guess the last time I can remember a gang of whites preying on a back out of pure racism was James Byrd in 1998. It wasn’t a mob, there were just three, so it’s hard to say it was indicative of a trend. The murderer got executed but Bush was still excoriated because he opposed hate crime legislation.

      I’m sure it happens but I can’t find many examples, but I did find this: 

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pcRpyRnSnc

      But the examples of blacks preying on white is legion. 

      Rape and sexual assault are other horrendous examples. In March of 2006 the Duke Lacrosse team was front page news, it was a firestorm. I turned out to be a lie but the color of skin was the angle the media ran with. The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

      It’s all awful but why do we turn a blind eye? So I agree with you, things are bad but what is worse is the lack of honest debate that enables the situation to get worse and worse.

      • 1Brett1

        Who is “turn[ing] a blind eye? These incidences are being reported and prosecuted. What statistics (from reputable sources where methodology can be verified) can you cite which substantiate your claim that “the lack of honest debate…enables the situation to get worse and worse.” [Meaning, the "situation" being violent crime by blacks against whites as a result of DIShonest debate.] I submit that you can’t back that statement up at all. It is just an opinion, and a biased one at that.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – this latest nonsensical screed gives further proof that you have no idea what you are talking about.

        You wrote, without any foundation whatsoever, as is your wont, the following:

        “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

        This is obviously inaccurate. Only a fool would believe such equine excrement.

        Please show the underlying data from which you drew your conclusions, and the methodology involved in the data collection, as well as the sample size and sample design. Please also indicate the confidence level, the margin of error, and the statistical significance of the data from which you drew your bogus conclusions.

        Assuming that you know what any of the above means, of course.

      • Ray in VT

        Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) called the Obamas “uppity”, and none other than your favorite half term Alaska governor referred to Obama’s “shuck and jive”, but I’m sure that those terms don’t have any racial undertones, as you know the true hearts and souls of those people or something.

        As for whites attacking blacks, I don’t think that you’re looking too hard, then:  For instance:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMSPnlBHOog

        or

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pcRpyRnSnc

        Now, are they legion?  It depends upon how you define legion, and it also depends upon how many is a mob.  Three isn’t a mob?  Is it more of a gang or a clique?

        You have stated that 39 times more likely figure a number of times, but I am still waiting for a source for that.  I would also like to know where your 2005 rape numbers come from.  For instance, considering that some 10,000 white men were convicted of rape in 2005 according to the FBI, it would seem highly unlikely that between 9,990 and 10,000 raped white women.

        I don’t see anyone turning a blind eye to anything, although I do see some very questionable numbers and a pretty much total ignoring of the statistics that show that African Americans are far more likely to be victimized in the case where one’s race or ethnicity has been shown to be a motivating factor in the attack.

        • HonestDebate1

          So now you think Palin’s a racist?

          Thanks for finding one example, it’s too bad Montequa didn’t have a gun. The other one is the same as what I posted already. I said it happens. I can cite 5 or 10 examples of the inverse for every one you cite and in fact have posted over 20 previously. But don’t forget my point, no one cares about black on black or black on white violence. The press is virtually silent about it. 

          What I wrote was true regarding rapes and sexual assaults. But again my purpose is to point out the double standard. The press went nuts over the Duke Lacrosse team which was not a legitimate rape but fit the narrative that I am objecting to. Ditto Tawana Brawley. When one looks at the context of the previous year of silence and no media circuses, I find it troubling.

          You have to extrapolate a bit to get the number from table 42:

          http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus05.pdf

          Of the 111,490 white victims in 2005 33.6% of the offenders were black. That comes out to 37,460.64.

          Of the 36,620 black victims 100% of the offenders were black and 0 % white. The asterisk stipulates 0 means 10 or less.

          Ask yourself why these numbers surprise you and others to the point of denial. It’s because the debate is not honest and the narrative has an agenda that works on many. The truth has no agenda.

          I am actually uncomfortable giving these numbers and am not trying to paint blacks with a broad brush. I am fighting back against the narrative that white Southerners are stalking black skittle eating teenagers.

        • HonestDebate1

          I replied to this with the requested proof and editorial comments, maybe you saw it. Then I edited it and used a word I should not have so now it has to be approved by the moderator. The undeniable truth was called horse excrement but I used a different word for excrement. If it does not appear after a while I’ll repost.

          • 1Brett1

            This reply of yours is just a lot of evasive nonsense. I saw your comment right after you posted it; it is intact now and hasn’t been flagged or changed in any way (maybe another example of your feigned/delusinal feelings of persecution?). This “undeniable truth” is not denied by others because they don’t believe these events have occurred, it’s just that your spin is nonsense, i.e., black on white crime is an epidemic and is increasing. No matter how many times you repeat these things, no matter how many different ways you approach the subject, no matter how you attack the person who challenges you, no matter, you have yet to provide any credible evidence to support your claims that there is an epidemic that is getting worse.

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you feel silly now? Or did Ray make it up?

          • 1Brett1

            What? What do you think I think Ray made up? And, no, I don’t “feel silly” in thinking your “undeniable truth” is just a lot of nonsensical spin.

          • HonestDebate1

            Clearly false:
            “This reply of yours is just a lot of evasive nonsense. I saw your comment right after you posted it; it is intact now and hasn’t been flagged or changed in any way (maybe another example of your feigned/delusinal feelings of persecution?). 

          • 1Brett1

            Clearlyfalsethat you say this is clearlyfalse? Yes! Noyou are wrong but yes, flase, you’re wrong about it being clearlyfalse. Sotruethis is false.

          • HonestDebate1

            Fail

          • Ray in VT

            I will give you credit for actually having a credible source, although there are issues with that source in the category in questions, and  here is where your argument falls apart.  That asterisk says “estimate
            is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases”.  That does not mean that
            there were 10 or fewer events out of that 36,000, but merely that there
            were 10 or fewer results in that category for the survey, which is a
            nationally conducted phone survey.  For instance, for this particular
            category they may have only spoken to 10 black women who said that they
            had been raped, and all ten said that they had been raped by a black
            man.  It does not mean that they surveyed 36,620 black women and that
            all 36,620 reported that their attackers were black.  To accept the
            numbers that you promote one would need to have a pretty poor nose for
            sketchy numbers as well as at best a questionable grasp of surveys and
            methodologies.

            It is true.  The truth does not have an agenda,
            but people do, and I think that you do, and I do not think that truth,
            or honest debate, are parts of it.

          • HonestDebate1

            First, I’m glad you saw it before it was taken down. Now I won’t have to repost.

            Any numbers can be misleading. But the DOJ is the most accurate place I would know to go. They also don’t differentiate between rape and sexual assault. The latter can be ambiguous. Also, other years may show different results.

            Bottom line: There is no more credible source, we can make tons of caveats and speculations but the official numbers say 37,460 to 0 for 2005. I think my point has a little wiggle room. Lets throw out 90% of the black offenders for no reason whatsoever. And lets add 100… no 500… no 1000 white offenders straight out of thin air. That would make it (check my math) 3,746 to 1000. From there round down big time to the nearest thousand and the results are still triple. An we won’t even consider that blacks are only 12ish% of the population.

            Obviously that totally skews the numbers to a ridiculous degree based on nothing. And still….

            So tell me how I’m the one with the agenda in the context of the numbers compared with the Duke Lacrosse media storm during the same time period?

            What is honest about ignoring the numbers? What is dishonest about posting them?

            Look Ray, you don’t like my politics and probably don’t like me either, cool. But maybe just maybe, I’m concerned about race relations and the double standard. Maybe just maybe I am here to inject a side some call equine excrement because it’s so foreign to their mindset which tells them the exact opposite of the truth. Maybe just maybe that side needs to be considered for the debate to be honest.

      • hennorama

        Gregg Smith – you finally cited a source, but that post seems to have vanished.  You cited Table 42 for here:

        http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf

        Of course, you completely fail to understand the source, and also have simply parroted the words of others.

        Anyone who is familiar with interpretation of data would never jump to the conclusions you have parroted. I wrote “parroted” because you are merely repeating the claims of others, without any original thought whatsoever.

        (For anyone interested in confirming this, try putting [37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man] into your favorite search engine. I DO NOT recommend reading the results, however.)

        Gregg Smith – you lifted this excrement directly from one of these sites, without any attribution whatsoever, didn’t you? And then you tried to make it appear as if it was your own.

        Is that “honest debate” sir?

        One notices also the inaccurate assumptions and limited thinking involved in what you have parroted, sir. You have assumed that all rape and sexual assault victims are female, and that all offenders are male. You also have not taken same-sex offenses and offenders into account. As you cited bjs.gov as your source, allow me to quote from that site:

        “Rape – Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.

        “Sexual assault – A wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force and include such things as grabbing or fondling. It also includes verbal threats.”

        See:
        http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

        The only people who parrot such “conclusions” are those who look only for data to support the positions they already hold, and contrary information or important disclaimers be damned. This is known as “confirmation bias.”

        In other words, cherry pickers and parrots such as yourself.

        Allow me to explain a bit further.

        Smith, your parroted claims fail to include some very important information. You cite “Table 42. Personal crimes of violence, 2005: Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender” as your source, as if the numbers in the table are facts.

        They aren’t.

        Not a single number in any of those tables is a “hard” number. Every single one is an estimate.

        Further, you claimed “Of the 36,620 black victims 100% of the offenders were black and 0 % white. The asterisk stipulates 0 means 10 or less.”

        No, it doesn’t. Quoting YOUR source as to the meaning of the asterisk, sir:

        “ *Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

        “Sample cases”? What the …?

        Oh yes, I haven’t gotten to that part yet, have I?

        All of the information is these tables is from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau.

        Notice the word “Survey.”

        Quoting from the Abstract on page 5 of the 485-page “National Crime Victimization Survey: Unbounded Data, 2005 [Record-Type Files]” codebook:

        “The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously the National Crime Survey (NCS), has been collecting data on personal and household victimization through an ongoing survey of a nationally representative sample of residential addresses since 1972.

        “The survey is administered by the U.S. Census Bureau (under the U.S. Department of Commerce) on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (under the U.S. Department of Justice).”

        See:
        http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/cgi-bin/file?comp=none&study=22341&ds=0&file_id=1054372
        (This is a large file, so you may wish to take my word for it)

        In other words, the tables are estimates, generated from survey responses, taken from a fairly small number of households. As such, they come with significant limitations.

        So, Gregg Smith, you’re drawing a conclusion based on an estimate, based on a survey, and the estimate you used “is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

        No one with any experience in or familiarity with interpretation of data would ever do such a thing, sir.

        And no one who is honest would lift this excrement directly from another source without attribution, sir.

        One could go on, but why waste any further time and effort on such a dishonest parrot?

        • HonestDebate1

          Such lies should be addressed so I’ll step in for Gregg Smith, whoever that is, o belligerent one.

          First I gave the link to the DOJ. That’s where it came from. I have no idea what other sites you say I parroted. The numbers are the numbers and they are from DOJ.

          Second, so this is two lies:

          “you lifted this excrement directly from one of these sites, without any attribution whatsoever, didn’t you? And then you tried to make it appear as if it was your own.”

          How is posting the link to the DOJ make it appear as if it was my own? So it’s not only a lie, it’s a stupid lie.

          Third, my comment was about race not sex. So if black guys rape white guys how does that matter to my point?

          Fourth, I made clear it was rape AND sexual assault in every comment. And I reiterated to Ray that fact and others.
          Fifth, I read the survey questions. How else does one determine the numbers than by asking the questions? 

          Sixth, the 33.6% of the 111,490 DID NOT have an asterisk. Of the 36,620 black victims 100% of the offenders were black, no asterisk.

          Seventh, if there are 10 or fewer samples then there cannot be many examples given that millions and millions were surveyed.

          Eighth, that’s not a fairly small sample.

          Ninth, 37,460 to 0, explain that away all you want. Read my reply to Ray.

          Tenth, look at the lengths you are going to to be dishonest. You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that white men rape or sexually assault black women as much as the inverse? Anywhere close? Anywhere in the same universe? Do you have any evidence at all? Poo-pooing my evidence is not evidence.

          Eleventh, my point was about the media and the circus over the Duke Lacrosse case which was bogus. Where is the reciprocal outrage over this? Or why were so many duped by the black prostitute if they were not spoon-fed a false narrative that rich white guys rape poor black women?

          Finally you wrote:  you’re drawing a conclusion based on an estimate, based on a survey, and the estimate you used “is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

          What conclusion? I conclude blacks are far more likely to rape whites than vice versa based on the results of millions of surveys (not just 10) from the DOJ. I conclude the media is willing to ruin peoples lives to keep that fact from the blissfully ignorant like you.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – stop with your dishonesty already.
            You have been making various unsupported claims about interracial crime, which I have refuted.

            The specific one that I deconstructed was “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

            The reason one can easily conclude that you plagiarized this material is the odd construction.

            If you had been looking for information on interracial crime, and had discovered Table 42 for 2005, one would expect a discussion about “rape and sexual assault” because the pertinent lines show estimates for “Rape/Sexual assault.” Yet you talked about these in reverse order – “…sexually assaulted or raped…”

            The second reason is that you added “Duke lacrosse team” to your plagiarized words.

            Here are just a couple of verbatim quotes. Note the exact same sequencing and the word-for-word plagiarism:

            From April 27, 2007 (This one includes the Duke lacrosse incident, and is truncated due to space considerations):

            “When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper …. To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005.

            “In Table 42 … there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

            “… the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear:

            “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

            See:
            http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007721.html
            http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368

            This started an echo.

            Also from 2007: “Last year in the United States 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”
            See: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2083171/pg1

            Do I really need to continue? There are thousands of results, virtually verbatim.

          • HonestDebate1

            Bizarre as hell. I first heard about the numbers on the radio years ago during the Duke scandal. I may have blogged on it then, check your file. Finding them again was not hard. I can’t remember the path to them but I don’t believe it was any of those you cited. It was just a stepping stone to the numbers. I don’t post anything without verifying. I gave the source. 37,460 to zip.

            You have refuted squat. You have given zero evidence to prove or even allege whites are more of a threat to blacks than blacks are to whites? I’ve given plenty to show the inverse and you tacitly excuse it. You’re changing the subject but it’s not about me. You are turning a blind eye. You are despicable and promote racism, lies and false narratives. You should be ashamed.

            Look at this comment from the day and tell me this poor guy is not a victim of narratives you accept:

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/03/20/the-killing-of-trayvon-martin#comment-471223510

            You and your ilk with your justifying, excuse making and pinball like bouncing around the truth are a big problem in America. Huge.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – you lifted it verbatim. Just admit it.

          • HonestDebate1
          • hennorama

            Another “naked” link? No thanks.

          • HonestDebate1

            Checkmate.

          • hennorama

            Equine excrement.

  • hennorama

    Gregg Smith – what a load of self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, foolish and false pride, and further proof of the lie of your oft-repeated phrase from the Gregg Smith Response-O-Matic:

    [It's not about me.]

  • jefe68

    I’m not sure you’re a racist. You sure do post some very racially charged comments and are unaware of it.
    As you just gave evidence to. 

    Smaller government? Well that’s a term that to me means less government and not one that works better.
    You want smaller government because you want to pay less in taxes and your idea of a society is at odds with mine in that regard. 

    You then blame President Obama for everything including race relations that have always been tense under the surface in the country. 

    You keep trying to turn this around to be the fault of liberals and that you’re a victim of all the bad progressives. Man up or zip it up already.

    • HonestDebate1

      It’s necessary for me to prove which side I’m on to show loyalty to the white masses. I find solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against blacks.

      • jefe68

        Joking about this does not help you.
        Making racially charged comments does not mean you are a racist. It could be a lot things, such as conditioning and a lack of awareness.

        My ex was Asian and I witnessed this kind of insensitivity all the time, most people are completely unaware that they are doing something wrong. By the way you don’t get to chose in this kind of case, if what you are saying is racially charged or not.

        • HonestDebate1

          It wasn’t a joke. 

          As I have repeatedly told you, I am well aware that some of my comments are racially charged. 

          • jefe68

            At the same time you deny it you admit to it. In my view you are as Brett already pointed out, a racist.
            Not a white supremacist type, no it’s more subtile than that.
            You do these odd reversals on accusing blacks of being racist. Ignoring the history to why a fair amount of African Americans might just be a bit wary of white people and others might harbor hatred. It’s not that the past justifies the hate, but one can understand where it might come from.

            Context is everything and in the case of language there is also a subtext. Sometimes more than one. Somehow you don’t seem to get that.

            If someone says to me “you Jews are so good with money” that might not seem offensive to most, but the subtext is based on that persons experience and upbringing. And somewhere along the line they developed a stereotype about Jews and money. Which comes out of a deeper anti-Semitic belief.

            You really do not seem be able to grasp this idea at all.
            Also you don’t get to decide if you’re racist or not. Your actions and the way they are perceived come into play.

          • HonestDebate1

            You have no idea who I associate with.

            “I think we all have some level of distrust and preconceived ideas about people we don’t understand or associate with.”

            That may be true but you own it. Don’t project your bigotries on me.

          • jefe68

            I was not projecting anything. It’s was a rhetorical comment.

            People do this all the time as I pointed out.

        • 1Brett1

          Well, he’s said he is aware that what he says is racially charged yet still continues to do it. He also just stated that he has a “pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against blacks” (and that he wasn’t joking about that).

          That’s good enough for me to say he’s a racist. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I already told you I’m done debating you. You are too nasty and too shallow. You reframe everything I say. You miss every point. You always assume the most insane conclusions when the truth is right there. So, I’ll just ignore you mostly, debate you not at all and only chime in when you step in it as you have. Maybe you did it on purpose but I don’t think you’re that smart despite my having posted this before. It wasn’t a joke but that doesn’t mean I endorse the view, I obviously don’t. Any idiot who has ever read my comments knows that… unless they automatically assume the worst when the truth is right there in their face.

            You toss around the word racist with astonishing ease. Or do you? Let’s see. 

            Here’s Barrack Obama from “Dreams From My Father”:

            “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

            “I found solace in nurturing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race”.

            Except Obama was serious. Is he a racist? Toss it out there.

          • 1Brett1

            You say you’re not going to reply to me (or “debate” me), then you say you will if I step over some imaginary line, etc. You then reply to my replying to someone else. You are a walking self-contradiction…I suppose my comment got to you so much that you broke your self-imposed ignoring program….I must’ve struck a nerve with you. 

            I believe you are a racist. It is subtle in most respects (in that it isn’t a white-hood wearing, cross-burning, gather a vigilante group and throw a rope over a tree branch kind of thing), and in many respects it is mostly cultural/the result of ignorance and an insular lifestyle. That’s just my opinion; don’t lose sleep over it already. So you know, you are the only person on this forum I’ve ever characterized as racist. It’s not so much I throw the term around with ease, as it is that I use it in reference to statements you’ve made that are particularly outrageous.

            You say something outrageous, then you say you aren’t joking about what you say, then you say you don’t hold the view you said you were serious about…I can only go by what you say. You have in the past implored me to go by what you say and not read anything into it; then, when you want to play games, you say I should read things into what you say…

            By the way, context is everything, and why someone says something, when they say it, how they say it (as well as the complete context of their saying it)….all of these components are important. You deny all of these things, as you deny others their humanity; those whom you dislike, and those who have different skin color than you. 

            I suspect those who are like you, you tend to show respect for right away without their earning your respect. Other’s have to earn your respect, and your yardstick for that is exacting and arbitrary. This is true for your view of liberals, blacks, and people who’ve rubbed you the wrong way for whatever reason.

          • HonestDebate1

            I never said I wouldn’t reply to you. Never.

            As I said: “You reframe everything I say. You miss every point. You always assume the most insane conclusions when the truth is right there.” So I’m not surprised by your response. I actually love it. I could not have proven my point better.

            So, I’ll take your ignoring Obama’s quotes as a yes, you think Obama is a racist. Or do you take the racist view that their should be different rules based on the color of skin? Never mind, you’ve already made that clear. You’re cornered and crying racist. As I said:

            “You are too nasty and too shallow.”

          • 1Brett1

            I believe you said you were “done” with me followed by a couple weeks of planned ignoring of my comments, but whatever, I don’t care what you think. I am not cornered nor do my replies prove anything you’ve been saying… these are  tactics on your part.

          • HonestDebate1

            “You say you’re not going to reply to me (or “debate” me),”

            heh.

          • 1Brett1

            Did you not say you were “done” with me? That notwithstanding, you seem really ratcheted up today. Does the difference between you are “done” with me, you are not going to “debate” me and you are not going to reply to me really important enough for you to wring your hands over? 

          • jefe68

            Oh boy. You really don’t get it. 

          • HonestDebate1

            I get it, you’ve already made your position clear. You have said there should be different rules for different races regarding language. My view is to treat everyone the same without regard to race. I don’t use words to purposely hurt anyone no matter what the word happens to be.

            I disagree with you totally but again you are consistent. Your view is the definition of racially charged but I wouldn’t say you are a racist.

          • jefe68

            No did not say there should be different rules.
            I said that language can be very charged and sometimes we don’t  realize it.

          • HonestDebate1
          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – WRONG. (again, but adding “again” just seems superfluous at this point.)

            As you have been in discussions with [jefe68] and [1Brett1], I’ll send this to them directly as well.

            From Politifact.com, The Truth-O-Meter Says, regarding your claim that in “Dreams From My Father,” Barrack Obama wrote “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”:

            “Obama didn’t write that”

            “The quote is actually lifted from an article in the American Conservative. Author Steve Sailer wrote a detailed analysis of Dreams from My Father, describing the narrator as “a humor-impaired Holden Caulfield whose preppie angst is fueled by racial regret” but also praising it as “an impressive book” with an “elegant, carefully wrought prose style.”

            “The ‘grievance’ quote comes from the following passage:

            “In reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he wrote Dreams from My Father , he found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race.”

            See:
            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/10/chain-email/obama-didnt-write-that/

            I guess the fact of you quoting another plagiarist should not be surprising, right?

            Your request for context, from another post, is also satisfied on Politifact.com and factcheck.org, here:

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/10/dreams-my-father-quotes-require-context/

            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/

          • jefe68

            Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. But you are correct, this guy knows what he’s doing.

          • HonestDebate1

            I actually thought your reply was fair but now rereading it something seems missing. Didn’t you write something about there being a difference between racism and racially charged comments? Maybe I inferred it but that is a good point. 

            I just figured you knew the quotes came from Obama and were giving him cover. But you didn’t call me a racist and I appreciate that. So you are entirely consistent if you don’t think Obama is a racist… unlike you know who, he’s stuck and can’t squirm out. 

          • jefe68

            Context is everything.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree. Please put the quotes in a favorable context, you can even make it up. They speak for themselves.

          • hennorama

            Gregg
            Smith – WRONG. (again, but adding “again” just seems
            superfluous at this point.)

            As
            you have been in discussions with [jefe68] and [1Brett1], I’ll send
            this to them directly as well.

            From
            Politifact.com, The Truth-O-Meter Says, regarding your claim that in
            “Dreams From My Father,” Barrack Obama wrote “I found
            a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity
            against my mother’s race.”:

            “Obama
            didn’t write that”

            “The
            quote is actually lifted from an article in the American
            Conservative. Author Steve Sailer wrote a detailed analysis of Dreams
            from My Father, describing the narrator as “a humor-impaired
            Holden Caulfield whose preppie angst is fueled by racial regret”
            but also praising it as “an impressive book” with an
            “elegant, carefully wrought prose style.”

            “The
            “grievance” quote comes from the following passage:

            “In
            reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario
            of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his
            father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving
            liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where
            America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb
            private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he
            wrote Dreams from My Father , he found solace in nursing a pervasive
            sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race.”

            See:

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/10/chain-email/obama-didnt-write-that/

            Your
            request for context, from another post, is also satisfied on
            Politifact.com and factcheck.org, here:

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/10/dreams-my-father-quotes-require-context/

            http://www.factcheck.org/2008/06/obamas-dreams-of-my-father/

          • 1Brett1

            I used to try giving him some credit/some benefit of the doubt, but that went out the window a long time ago for me. 

            Now he is trying to play some game with quotes from Obama’s memoir by taking them out of context and by pretending he’s saying them, presumably in hopes he can snare someone into being “duped” so he can go, “aha! these are the words of the President!!! gotcha!” Or some such nonsense…

          • hennorama

            1Brett1 – here’s a link to my post disputing Gregg Smith’s claims about Barack Obama’s words.  Just wanted to make sure you saw it, OK?

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-951297871

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, I saw it henn, when you posted it, but thanks for the link. Considering how much this guy is posting about this nonsense and trying to whip up the forum on a daily basis about black on white racism (and Obama inciting it), I’m sure the link will be useful in the future!

          • HonestDebate1

            Do you want more? I gave you only 2 and you made an excuse for only one of them. If the one quote was made up, fine. It’s believable because of the others. It’s entirely plausible because of his history (rev Wright, Cambridge police, New Black Panthers, etc.). Look at the forest. What about the other one?

            “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.”

            Or these?

            “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

            “I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela.”

            Why do I get the feeling ya’ll will ignore them?

          • HonestDebate1

            Crickets.

          • HonestDebate1

            More crickets. You guys are soooo shallow.

          • hennorama

            Gregg “The Plagiarist” Smith says, in defense of his having quoted another plagiarist:

            “If the one quote was made up, fine. It’s believable because of the others. It’s entirely plausible because of his history …”

            Wow.

            How one acts under pressure reveals a great deal. In
            Smith’s case, it’s a complete lack of ethics and intellectual honesty.

            In a recent post Smith wrote “I don’t post anything without verifying.”

            See:http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-951197788

            Yeah, right.

            So much for your so-called “honest debate,” Smith. You may wish to put your shovel down, sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            “Why do I get the feeling ya’ll will ignore them?”

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith –

            Ignoring the ignorant in the defense of sanity is no vice. And plagiarism in the pursuit of “honest debate” is no virtue.

            (my sincere apologies to the memory of Sen. Barry Goldwater)

          • HonestDebate1

            So misquoting is plagiarism?Who did the other guy plagiarize? You have no idea what the word even means.

            It’s just something to harp on so you don’t have to explain 37,460 to zip.

          • hennorama

            Smith – “Misquoting?” HA! What a bunch of malarkey.

            The two quotes I provided are identical, beginning with the number 37,460, and they match 26 of the 27 words in your post.

            Just ‘fess up. You didn’t quote or misquote anyone. You tried to pass off the words of someone else as your own. Then you tried to pretend they were your original thoughts, by going through some arithmetic, (virtually identical to one website I had cited, BTW) citing estimates from BJS’ Table 42, 2005.

            Sorry, that’s plagiarism, sir. You can pretend and deflect and flail about as wildly as you wish, but that doesn’t change a thing.

            And if you cannot understand the facts that “37,460” does not appear anywhere in Table 42, and that every single number in Table 42, upon which your entire conclusion depends, is merely an estimate, based on self-reported responses to a survey, and nothing more, that is entirely your own failure.

            For some reason, the anagram “Bonehead Test” comes to mind just now.

        • HonestDebate1

          The Democrats who have said unbelievably racist trash about Asians to Michelle Malkin or Mitch McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao knew exactly what they were doing and did it with malice. No problem.

      • 1Brett1

        That’s your opinion. You own it! *Note a present tense with no apparent need to qualify your statement whatsoever. 

  • 1Brett1

    George Zimmerman appeared on Sean Hannity’s show not long after the shooting, and during the interview Hannity asked him if he was at all familiar with the parameters of laws regarding both self-defense and ‘stand-your-ground.’ Zimmerman said, no, he didn’t know about the specifics of those laws. 

    This is yet another discrepancy or inconsistency in Zimmerman’s story, which in this case amounts to an out-and-out lie. 

    Zimmerman was a student taking law enforcement courses at the local community college. At the time of the shooting, he had already completed a course in not only self-defense theories and definitions but in Florida’s ‘stand-your-ground’ law, a course for which he received an A.

  • HonestDebate1

    I don’t really have a big problem with the moderation around here except that I cannot find a set of guidelines. The only On Point employee I have seen commenting is Sam Gale Rosen, maybe he is the moderator, if so, Sam please consider posting some guidelines. But again, it’s not a big beef and I think you do a good job (if it’s you).

    I have had 3 comments flagged for review. It happens immediately upon posting and the comment is gone. There is no time to read them and I’m not conspiratorial enough to think anyone is spying on me before I post. This leads me to believe there are algorithms that recognize certain words, flag them and send them to the moderator for approval. It’s only frustrating because the comment is gone and reposting from my feeble mind usually omits some brilliant point I made. Plus I don’t know when and if it will reappear. The first time was on this board, here:

    http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-945262957

    I think the word in the 5th paragraph triggered the review. When it reappeared I had already reposted so I edited the original comment to explain the redundancy… but I still had the word and the edit was immediately flagged for review again. Then it came back again and is still there. I’m not sure what happens if the comment does not muster up, I would hope some kind of message would appear in it’s place.

    Now it’s a happened again, and on an edit again. I should have left it alone. Hopefully the comment will reappear but I don’t know when and some are chomping at the bit for proof of a claim I made. I’ll give it little while longer.

    I’m just wondering if anyone else has experienced this of late?

    • HonestDebate1

      So it just happened again and I have no idea why this time.

      • jefe68

        Any black helicopters near by?

        • 1Brett1

          I think it’s some kind of ploy on the part of “you know who” to both bolster the persecution angle and to give some sort of justification for reposting “that commenter who shall be nameless['s]” ignorant, bigoted and obsessive comments about race, Obama, liberals, commentators he doesn’t like on this forum, etc.

        • HonestDebate1

          No and the moderators are off today and probably through Monday. It’s an algorithm. 

  • 1Brett1

    “… being racist means you are a murderous stalker.”

    No, now come on, that’s not true; for example, you are a racist but not a murderous stalker. …Well, at least I don’t believe you are a murderous stalker, but then I don’t know you well enough to speak to that. I give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

  • 1Brett1

    That’s heinous!

  • HonestDebate1

    If Paula Deen lost her job, sponsors and reputation for something she said decades ago then why does Alec Baldwin skate for his recent homophobic remarks? Maybe Cornell West is right. 

    • jefe68

      Alec Baldwin does not have a cooking show.
      Talk about desperation. This is nothing short of a puerile response. 

  • HonestDebate1

    Does anyone want to make the case whites are more dangerous to blacks than blacks are to whites? Or would you guys rather pretend it is so while you write entire comments about me?

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – I’m pretty sure you’re all alone on your “one racial/ethnic group in the US is ‘more dangerous to’ another racial/ethnic group in the US” island.

      No one else is making any such claims.

    • jefe68

      Has it ever crossed your mind that your question is not worth answering? By the way it is about you. It’s your right wing extremist opinions that are driving these inane questions, not intelectual discourse.

  • HonestDebate1

    It’s hilarious that all of the sudden a Google lover is afraid of Google. She’s afraid of Youtube too. The same person gives bookoos of links and demands others read them. Somehow if a youtube or a google search is accompanied by some commentary they’re cool though. Does that make sense? Or is an admission they have no case? Who is afraid of Youtube and Google? Who would use that as a dodge and admit it for all to see? Or if I refute a comment with dozen enumerated points but they think they caught me on one that is completely irrelevant to the issue then that means nothing matters but me. Some are obsessed with me. Embarrassingly so. I am obsessed with honest debate but it is not forthcoming.

    I stand by everything I’ve written.

    • hennorama

      Gregg
      Smith – I’ll reply to various of your posts here, if I may, as you
      are no doubt referring to [hennorama] in your rant. Your brave
      indirectness is notable.

      I
      have already shown you to be a plagiarist. You simply won’t admit
      it, à la Mitt “No Apologies” Romney. Fine. I won’t repeat my
      case here, but it is truly open-and-shut.

      Please
      excuse my caution in not clicking on unexplained “naked” links in
      your (or anyone’s) posts. It’s a habit, but I also consider the
      source.

      FYI
      – when I include a link in a post it is nearly always so that
      anyone can check the accuracy and validity of what is contained in
      the post, or to satisfy their curiosity about what I’ve mentioned or
      discussed. This is called “attribution.” You can look it up.
      Your criticism of my use of links is hilariously ironic, given your
      plagiarism.

      Refuting
      what you describe as a “dozen enumerated points” is pointless,
      but I will summarize the main counterpoints.

      Several
      of the “points” indicate an exceptional lack of understanding of
      the information in Table 42, and of NCVS estimates in general.

      Again,
      as previously stated, every single number in the table is an
      ESTIMATE. These are not actual reported crimes, unlike FBI data.
      You completely misunderstand what this information is.

      This
      is not surprising, since you merely usurped someone else’s words and
      conclusions.

      You
      wrote “millions and millions were surveyed.” This is FALSE. For
      2005, 38,600 households were surveyed, with a 91% response rate, and
      67,000 persons were interviewed, with an 84% response rate.

      See:http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus/cvus05mt.pdf
      (Survey Methodology for Criminal Victimization in the United States,
      2005)

      If
      any portion of the estimates are based on small numbers of survey
      cases, that necessarily calls into question the other data that are
      in the same section of the table. Anyone who has even the barest
      minimum of understanding of statistics realizes this. All of the
      information came from the same two lines in the “Rape/Sexual
      assault” section of Table 42. There were eight “Perceived race
      of offender” percentages shown on these two lines, and FIVE OF
      EIGHT had an asterisk, meaning, the “ *Estimate is based on about
      10 or fewer sample cases.”

      Your
      entire conclusion rests on these estimates, the majority of which are
      based on “about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

      =========

      In
      another post you wrote “You have refuted squat. You have given zero
      evidence to prove or even allege whites are more of a threat to
      blacks than blacks are to whites? I’ve given plenty to show the
      inverse and you tacitly excuse it.”

      First
      of all, do you know what the word “refute” means?

      Secondly,
      I have simply been refuting the nonsense that you’ve been claiming
      about interracial crime rather than making any claims myself. You
      appear to have an obsessive focus on interracial crime; I do not.

      But
      allow me to show you some other information, which you already have,
      sir.

      This
      information is contained in a direct reply to you, here:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-946421553

      BTW,
      this is from the same “Table 42” from the BJS that you know and
      love, but from 2008:

      “For
      the estimated 2,788,600 “White only” victims of “Crimes of
      violence”, the “perceived race of offender” was:

      White: 67.4%

      Black: 15.4%

      Other:
      5.1%

      Not
      known or not available: 12.0%

      “For
      the estimated 570,550 “Black only” victims of “Crimes of
      violence”, the “perceived race of offender” was:

      White: 15.9%

      Black: 64.7%

      Other:
      7.3%

      Not
      known or not available: 12.2%”

      Please
      note the careful, repeated use of the word “estimated.”

      Then
      later, I spelled out for you what this implied, again in a direct
      reply to you, here:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-947150122

      “Here
      is what the data in my post above, combined with population data from
      the Census Bureau, tells us:

      Black
      offender/White victim rate = 215 per 100,000

      White
      offender/Black victim rate = 232 per 100,000”

      So
      much for your claim that “You have given zero evidence to prove or
      even allege whites are more of a threat to blacks than blacks are to
      whites.”

      [NOTE
      TO READERS]: I wish to clarify that, unlike Gregg Smith, I harbor
      absolutely no belief that any racial or ethnic group in the US is “a
      threat to” any other racial or ethnic group.

      =========

      As
      to the rest of your various claims about interracial crime – you seem
      to being trying to show something about racism and crime.

      As
      I’ve written previously, interracial crime is not in and of itself
      indicative of racism or bias. One would expect this to be obvious to
      all. There is a huge difference between crime that happens to be
      interracial, and crime that is racially motivated.

      If
      you’re interested in racially motivated crime, you should look at
      both the FBI “hate crime” data, and the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice
      Statistics reports. Some recent information from those two entities
      are available here:

      http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2011/tables/table-1
      (Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias
      Motivation, 2011)

      http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hcv0311.pdf
      (Special Report MARCH 2013 Hate Crime Victimization, 2003-2011)

      The
      BJS report above indicates that, “In 2007-11, whites, blacks, and
      Hispanics had similar rates of violent hate crime victimization.”

      You
      can read all of the above in yet another of my posts, here:

      http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/27/scotus-voting-rights#comment-944512523

      • HonestDebate1

        Yadda Ysdda,

        Another reply went to the moderator and I’m not going to redo it. It will probably be Monday before it reappears.

        I’ll nutshell it. You are looking at a bug in the bark on a twig on a branch on a tree but there is a forest. You’re going off into bias, intent and mind reading. There is no evidence, circumstantial, anecdotal or even a correlation (much less causation) to say blacks should fear whites yet the press pounds that message into poor black kids heads. Some look at a poor black kid and excuse poverty, black racism, crime or lack of integrity because of the color of skin. It’s sick. 

        A white woman is far far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted black man that the opposite. A white person is far far more likely (about 39 times, 50 by per capita) to be a victim of violent crime perpetrated by a black. A Black person is even more likely to be a victim of another black. Maybe it’s not racism, who knows. I’m talking about the numbers, you are dodging and excusing them or saying they don’t matter because they might not be racist. Why? I’m talking probability here. You can’t deny it so you change the subject, that’s what you do. I’ve cornered you into submission time and time again.

        And black mobs assemble to prey on whites often but the opposite happens extremely rarely. Yet we have black dads hoping their sons can pass as white because the press has convinced them Zimmerman is a typical white person (aka racist). This goes back to the Rodney King riots and beyond. Remember?

        http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/29/for-22-murder-victims-la-riots-leave-legacy-justice-eluded/

        Poor black guys, we should excuse them they had good reason. Right?

        It’s sick.

        • HonestDebate1

          Oh yea, reread the methodology.

        • hennorama

          For anyone actually interested, some historical estimates of crime victimization data, and some perspective:

          Table 42 Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender,

          the Rape/sexual assault [a] section, through the years:

          YEAR White victim/ Black victim/
          Black offender White offender

          1996 8.8 * 13.5 *
          1997 8.0 * 0.0 *
          1998 9.9 * 7.2 *
          1999 7.3 * 0.0 *
          2000 7.0 * 7.0 *
          2001 17.1 13.4 *
          2002 13.1 * 14.2 *

          Note 1: BJS changed its “racial categories” in 2003 – “Racial categories presented in these tables now consist of the following: white only, black only, other race only (American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander if only one of these races is given), and two or more races (all persons of any race indicating two or more races). Individuals are now asked whether they are of Hispanic ethnicity before being asked about their race, and are now asked directly if they are Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino.”

          This means our categories change to:

          YEAR White only victim/ Black only victim/
          Black offender White offender

          2003 15.5 * 0.0 *
          2004 8.3 * 0.0 *
          2005 33.6 0.0 *
          2006 16.7 * 0.0 *
          2007 7.6 * 0.0 *
          2008 16.4 * 0.0 *

          * Estimate is based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.
          [a] Includes verbal threats of rape and threats of sexual assault.

          Note 2: Due to changes in methodology, the 2006 National Crime Victimization rates are not comparable to previous years and cannot be used for yearly trend comparisons.

          Source:http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2173 (Criminal Victimization In The United States — Statistical Tables)

          Note 3: The National Crime Victimization Survey has documented significant declines in the overall Rate of criminal victimization for Rape/sexual assault per 1,000 persons age 12 or older, from 1.1 in 2001, to 0.5, and 0.7 for 2009 and 2010, respectively.

          Source:http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

          This is in line with FBI data showing a decline in the (much more rare) Forcible Rape rate per 100,000 Inhabitants from 31.8 in 2001, to 29.1 and 27.7 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. (Equivalent rates per 1,000 Inhabitants are 0.318, 0.291, and 0.277 respectively.)

          Source:http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

          For an illuminating discussion comparing and contrasting “The Nation’s two crime measures,” see:
          http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ntcm.pdf

          ==========

          Looking at the Table 42 data points above, one notices a couple of things. First, only 2 of the 26 estimates shown for the thirteen year period do NOT have an asterisk next to them, meaning only 2 are NOT “based on about 10 or fewer sample cases.”

          Here’s what the BJS says about low numbers of sample cases:

          “FAQ Detail

          “You have a footnote saying that the number is based on 10 or fewer sample cases. But the number is larger than 10. How can this be?

          “We develop national estimates from sample cases of interviews with victims. We take the data we get from these interviews and weight it to represent the nation as a whole. All of the published data from the survey represent weighted estimates. When the national estimate is based on 10 or fewer actual sample cases, we make note of this and encourage caution in interpreting results.”

          See:http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=464

          These low sample case numbers are not surprising, because the crimes of Rape and Sexual assault are statistically rare. Again, quoting the BJS on the matter:

          “There is a large margin of error around statistically rare crimes, such as rape/sexual assault.”

          See:http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=qa&iid=466

          The second thing we notice in the Table 42 data points above are the changes starting in 2003. BJS changed its “racial categories” in 2003, making them significantly narrower. These implies even smaller numbers of sample cases in each category than before the change.

          As the BJS says, “When the national estimate is based on 10 or fewer actual sample cases, we make note of this and encourage caution in interpreting results.”

          • HonestDebate1

            “There is a large margin of error around statistically rare crimes, such as rape/sexual assault.

            ”37,460 to zip. That is one humongous error. Explain it away.

            BTW, you said table 42 was horse excrement. Why are you now embracing it while at the same time saying they were off by 37,460?

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – yeahright. If I “said table 42 was horse excrement” you’d be able to show that, right.

            Good luck.

            The fact that you cannot understand limitations of statistics is no fault of mine, sir.

            “You can lead a Gregg Smith to logic, but you can’t make him think.”

          • HonestDebate1

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-951072952

            Now go ahead and split hairs to claim my quote, “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.” was not backed up by table 42 and was just made up out of thin air.

            At the same time ignore the fatal flaw in your illogic:

            ”37,460 to zip. That is one humongous error. Explain it away.”
            Also refuse to answer the question:”Why are you now embracing it while at the same time saying they were off by 37,460?”

            Splain that.

          • hennorama

            Smith-

            Your claim was stolen verbatim from someone else. That’s called plagiarism. You have yet to explain it, and so you stand, hilariously self-righteous, on quicksand.

            As to explaining what you erroneously believe to be facts, I need only six words.

            The numbers are estimates, not facts.

            The equine excrement is the claims you have made, in this specific case, your plagiarized claim that “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man,” and not Table 42.

            One notes again your complete inability to explain, substantiate, document and support even the simplest of your claims – that I supposedly “said table 42 was horse excrement.” I didn’t.

            Table 42 is simply a compilation of estimates, based on self-reported responses to a survey, and nothing more.

            That you fail to understand even this most basic fact is no fault of mine, sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            Verbatim: in the exact words : word for word

            Now put my quote in quotations and google it.

            Put part of my quote in quotation marks and google it.
            Or are you still afraid of google?

            So stop deflecting and clear it up, can your rationalizations account for 37,460 to zip? Is that just an error?

            According to DOJ 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man and between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. Period, end of story.

          • hennorama

            Smith – do I seriously need to embarrass you yet again?

            You lifted your claim verbatim. That is plagiarism.

            I’ve previously cited two websites, both from 2007, that (beginning with the number 37,460) match 26 of the 27 words in your post (that’s over 96 percent), and that have the exact same punctuation and phrasing:

            “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

            See:
            http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007721.html (I think this is the actual origin of this nonsense.)

            AND

            “Last year in the United States 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

            See:
            http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2083171/pg1

            You wrote:

            “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

            Beginning with the number 37,460, the sole differences are that you substituted the word “women” in place of “females” and omitted the word “while.”

            Are you claiming that what you wrote were your own original thoughts and words? Are you claiming that you didn’t plagiarize?

            Sorry pal, that’s plagiarism, pure and simple. As I said, it’s open-and-shut.

            Now, for some further amusement, please show everyone where the “DOJ number” 37,460 appears in Table 42 for 2005.

            (Hint: It doesn’t.)

          • HonestDebate1

            So table 42 simply a compilation of estimates, based on self-reported responses to a survey, and nothing more that is off by 37,460 but it’s not horse excrement?
            So it’s reliable? Make up your mind.

          • hennorama

            Smith – repeating:

            The number 37,460 appears nowhere in Table 42.

            The numbers are estimates, not facts.

            As to the confidence interval of the NCVS tables, I have no reason to doubt a level of 95%.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – one doubts anyone will mourn any of your posts having disappeared, sir.

          Repeating your claims, again without any substantiation whatsoever, does not make them any less false.

          I am (again) challenging you to explain each claim that you have made, in terms that anyone can understand.

          Specifically, I challenge you to explain, substantiate, and document these claims that you’ve just made:

          “A white woman is far far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted black man that the opposite.”

          “A white person is far far more likely (about 39 times, 50 by per capita) to be a victim of violent crime perpetrated by a black.”

          “A Black person is even more likely to be a victim of another black.”

          Those are just from today. I also challenge you to explain, substantiate, and document these claims that you’ve made previously:

          “if you are white you are far far more likely to be the victim of a violent crime perpetrated but [sic] a black than vise versa [sic].”

          “Blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites then vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit a robbery.”
          .
          “blacks are more likey [sic] to victimize whites than vice versa.”

          You seem to accept these claims as fact. If they are indeed factual, you can easily show it, right? And of course anyone who is “honest” relies on reputable sources, with data they can show to be true, right?

          And I agree, your comment is sick.

          • HonestDebate1

            Prove the sky is blue. Prove a bear craps in the woods. 

            I’ve given you tons, you given me squat.

          • hennorama

            Gregg Smith – yet another unresponsive deflection. So much for “honest debate.”

            One must fairly conclude that your repeated failures to provide evidence is because your claims are false, and your arguments are so weak that you cannot support them with evidence.

            Or that you are too stubborn or too lazy to do so.

            Or that no evidence exists.

            Or all of the above.

            Regardless, your repeated deflections simply demonstrate the weakness of your claims.

            One notes also your complete failure to explain your plagiarism.

            Again, so much for “honest debate.”

          • HonestDebate1

            Talk about the pot calling the kettle African-American. 

          • hennorama

            Deflect away, Smith. Your continued lack of support for your claims remains unchanged, as does your plagiarism.

          • HonestDebate1

            Dude, citing DOJ numbers is not plagiarism. Look it up. Plagiarism is something like Biden did. Call me all the names you want but it’s silly.

        • 1Brett1

          Oh, gee, one of posts disappeared or something; what to do? …Well, not to be redundant, just for honest debate purposes, let me nutshell it: you are a douche bag.

    • 1Brett1

      This is an example (and there are many other examples of this, e.g., “you know who,” “this other poster,” etc.) of you invoking someone out of the blue just to bash (of course, you’ll have some justifiable reason all worked out as to why this is okay for you, just not okay for other posters you don’t like) for the sake of “honest debate.” …You’re not only a punk, scoundrel and racist, you’re a hypocrite!

      • HonestDebate1

        Yea, next thing you know, instead of making a comment on it’s own (we do that here) about whatever I choose within minutes of skinny threads, I’ll be evoking actual names in replies to everyone, days later, in a non-sequitur fashion. Maybe I’ll butt in when I see you and warn those replying to you about you when I’m not even part of the discussion and offer nothing at all regarding the issue at hand.

        But then again, I’m sane and you’re not in my head. Dude, you were made a fool of and it’s there for everyone to see. Stop digging.

        • 1Brett1

          Indeed, you commit the same offense you accuse me of then claim moral/ethical superiority on your part while claiming my actions are the lowest of the low…You are a despicable man who has no need to be made a fool of; you are a fool without any such help.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea same thing. Alrighty then.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, you see, you think I am  irritated by your “likes” of my posts that put you down…however, I set you up for that a couple of weeks ago; now you do it even without a prompt or a cue. In a Pavlovian sense, I have trained you well. If we were to meet, I could say, “bark!” hold up a Milkbone and you would “rough, rough” away. You aren’t very good on a leash, though, I must say; we’ll have to work on that. Now, go lie down, play time is over.

            Thanks for being the dog, er, marionette, Greg.  

          • 1Brett1

            I guess you (Greg) still need training on the “go lie down” command…we’ll have to work on that too.

          • HonestDebate1

            Are you still fuming because I said (and proved) I can make you do tricks? Get original dude. 

            Here’s some advice, put me in my place with honest debate.

          • 1Brett1

            You’ve already been put in your place, over and over; that place is  with dogs and sock puppets where you belong. By whom? Yourself; by the drivel you write; by the tripe you call honest debate; by the nonsense  you throw out trolling for an argument about nonsense.

          • jefe68

            “He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.” 
            ― Groucho Marx

          • hennorama

            Here are a few quotes from various sources, attributed to Solomon. I’ve recently been struggling with the last two.

            “The more you talk, the more likely you are to sin. If you are wise, you will keep quiet.”

            (Thought to be the basis for the more common “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”)

            “A good person’s words are a fountain of life, but a wicked person’s words hide a violent nature.”

            “The wise get all the knowledge they can, but when fools speak, trouble is not far off.”

            “A good person’s words are like pure silver; a wicked person’s ideas are worthless.”

            “A good person’s words will benefit many people, but you can kill yourself with stupidity”

            “Righteous people speak wisdom, but the tongue that speaks evil will be stopped.”

            “Righteous people know the kind thing to say, but the wicked are always saying things that hurt.”

            “Don’t speak in the ears of a fool, for he will despise the wisdom of your words.”

            “Never correct conceited people; they will hate you for it. But if you correct the wise, they will respect you.”

          • HonestDebate1

            Great quotes, here’s another I often repeat.

            I don’t want to be wrong for the sake of ideology. If proven wrong I am grateful for the enlightenment. -Myself

          • jefe68

            And yet the evidence, in your case, does not support your claim.

            Now you come across as a self-righteous rube.

  • HonestDebate1

    Henny’s quote:

    “In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black women were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”

    This yields 10,400 results. According to Henny that are all plagiarist because they cited DOJ numbers. The math impaired Henny implies that 33.6% of 111,490 does not equal 37,460. Actually it’s 37,460.64 as I’ve already pointed out. In this way Richar… I mean Henny can say the DOJ doesn’t cite the number. That is certainly tortured logic.

    I wish I would have cut and pasted the quote and that it was verbatim because I would gladly acknowledge it. But alas all I did was remember the debate from 2007 and googled “black white rape stats 2006″  and then the same with 2005. I knew I heard it in the same time frame as the Duke Lacrosse debacle. That led me here:

    http://murderbymedia.wordpress.com/2013/01/28/a-black-answer-to-black-on-white-rape-statistics/

    There were other sites but I always look for the other side’s logic which in this case was just more defending of black rapists.

    That took me to table 42 and the numbers I knew existed. I cited them and Henny has been defending black rapist ever since by calling me a plagiarist. I wish I had gotten the quote I did read verbatim. But no I just paraphrased instead of cutting and pasting. I was almost word for word, next time I’ll get it right.

    So here’s the thing, according to the DOJ in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black women were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

    Maybe it all means nothing because I’m a so-called plagiarist, right? I mean 37,460 to zero is just a rounding error. Yea, go with that, I’ll stick with honest debate. Ya’ll just keep believing blacks are oppressed, raped and otherwise victimized by whites so you can feel sorry for what you must consider their inferior selves. I’ll just keep on respecting my fellow man, expecting the most out of everyone and applying the same rules to all regardless of skin color. It’s a weird concept, I know.

    Alright gang, I’m done swatting the gnats on this one.

    • jefe68

      Funny, you remind me of a mosquito or a gnat.
      It’s as if you are some kind of annoying insect of a man.

    • hennorama

      Gregg Smith – First of all, the words you describe as “Henny’s quote” are not my words. The fact that you would describe them as such speaks volumes about your “honesty.”

      You plagiarized your claim (that “The previous year (2005) 37,460 white women were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.”). Beginning with the number 37,460, 26 of the 27 words in your claim (that’s over 96 percent), exactly matched the citations I have made. This is an open-and-shut case, sir. 26 of 27 is not “paraphrasing.”

      You completely misunderstand what you claim to be the source of some of the figures you cite as fact. You continue to write about “DOJ numbers” yet fail to understand that, as I have repeatedly and patiently explained, the numbers are estimates, not facts. The figure of 37,460 does not appear anywhere in the BJS’ Table 42 for 2005. To come up with this figure, one must multiply one estimate by another estimate. Only an ignorant fool would claim the result to be a fact, as you repeatedly have, and as you continue to do.

      Rather than respond to my repeated challenges that you explain, substantiate, document and support your claims, you try to change the subject.

      So much for “honest debate.”

      • HonestDebate1

        Hennon, they are the DOJ numbers. I and 10,400 other plagiarist cited them. We didn’t say they weren’t estimates. Or maybe it was 10,399 with one being the original. Do you like that better? I didn’t say this is a fact, I even pointed out that the numbers can be misleading and where that might occur so this accusation of screaming “fact” is a lie. A bald-faced lie. I gave the source of the numbers for anyone to see the methods. I explained the math (and verified it before I posted) in my very early comment to Ray before you butted in. The whole nine yards. You saw the comment before it was taken down. I also tried very hard to skew the numbers to a ridiculous degree way beyond logic and reason. The result was still triple. I’ll point you to it again.

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/06/28/week-scotus-obama-snowden#comment-950974002 

        Nope, you’re just harping on something you made up and think negates my point but it does not. That’s what you do and have always done. That’s why you are the most disingenuous person on this blog. The DOJ numbers, estimates, anecdotal evidence, speculations, and any criteria in the universe cannot produce even a hint of an idea that maybe black men don’t rape white women much more often than vice versa. The press has people convinced otherwise with media frenzy over Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum as evidence. That’s the point you refuse to acknowledge. That has been my point all along. Yet you will try anything to avoid the truth because of ideology. You’ve proven it time and time again. So harp all you want about the mite on the bug on the leaf on the twig on the branch off the fork of the trunk of a tree while ignoring the forrest. You are very good at that.

        I’ll happily stipulate I’m a plagiarizing, dishonest, idiot ideologue, ignorant fool who tortures kittens for fun. Whatever you want. Making entire post about me in lieu of an honest rebuttal is just silly. And you accuse ME of changing the subject? That’s rich. I just don’t understand why you want to embarrass yourself this way for posterity but carry on.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – a few random questions for you, apropos of nothing:

          Would you call a famous actor’s home a Star nesT?

          Would you pay a penny for a tater or for a sprig of heath?

          What is your opinion of Dan Abrams?

          Who is the dean of Smith College?

          Did you know that both Bally’s Atlantic City and the Showboat Casino Hotel have been penalized by a NJ commission for having used 51-card decks?

          Do you think Leigh-Allyn Baker is a good actress?

          Is the Federal Election Commission doing a good job?

          When was the last time you used the Dewey Decimal System?

          Does Taylor Swift own a Cadillac DTS (DeVille Touring Sedan)?

          When grilling, do you prefer oakwood, or something else?

          Do you have an opinion about 11 USC § 524 – Effect of discharge?

          When the wind is blowing, are twigs a greater hazard than a rock?

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – Again, apropos of nothing, I believe it was Dana Perino who said one is generally well-advised to consider carefully how to respond to random questions.

        • hennorama

          Gregg Smith – your argument, such as it is, seems to be that if “I and 10,400 other plagiarist[s]” do it, it’s OK.

          Yeah, right. Those are some interesting ethics you claim there, sir.

          • HonestDebate1

            That’s not my argument at all, not even close. Your premise is whacked. It’s okay because your plagiarist accusation is just a bizarre red herring as you ignore, deflect and downright refuse to acknowledge the truth of what I’m saying. Whatever, it’s not about me.

  • Rwederfoort

    Dear Brothers and Sisters,

    The TRUTH of your PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA is OSAMA BIN LADEN the TERRORIST.

    Osama Bin Laden is not Dead, because he is OBAMA the President Playing that ROLE also as a ACTOR.
    http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com/2013/07/osama-bin-laden-is-not-dead-because-he.html

    BARRY SOETORO(IMMIGRANT) AKA BARACK OBAMA (CIA) AKA OSAMA BIN LADEN (TERRORIST) AKA  BARACK OBAMA (USA PRESIDENT 2X)
    http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com/2013/07/barry-soetoroimmigrant-aka-barack-obama.html

    HOMELAND SECURITY: NSA,PRESIDENT OBAMA WIFE MICHELLE OBAMA VISITING OSAMA BIN LADEN SON HAMZA BIN Laden in Hospital
    http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com/2013/07/homeland-security-nsapresident-obama.html

    http://ronaldwederfoort.blogspot.com

    The TRUTH will come out, everyday as more light poors in the WORLD.

    Please SHARE with all your brothers and sisters.

    Have a blessed day.

    Ronald Wederfoort
    ronald.wederfoort@yahoo.com
    IT Business consultant
    5999 5156118

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 30, 2014
Smoke and fire from the explosion of an Israeli strike rises over Gaza City, Tuesday, July 29, 2014. Israel escalated its military campaign against Hamas on Tuesday, striking symbols of the group's control in Gaza and firing tank shells that shut down the strip's only power plant in the heaviest bombardment in the fighting so far. (AP)

Social media is changing how the world sees and talks about Israel and Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians. We’ll look at the impact.

Jul 30, 2014
Janitta Swain, Writer/Exec. Producer/Co-Director Dinesh D'Souza, John Koopman, Caroline Granger and Don Taylor seen at the World Premiere of 'America: Imagine The World Without Her' at Regal Cinemas LA Live on Monday, June 30, 2014, in Los Angeles, CA. (AP)

Conservative firebrand Dinesh D’Souza says he wants an America without apologies. He’s also facing jail time. We’ll hear him out.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 29, 2014
This April 28, 2010 file photo, shows the Colstrip Steam Electric Station, a coal-fired power plant in Colstrip, Mont. Colstrip figures to be a target in recently released draft rules from the Environmental Protection Agency that call for reducing Montana emissions 21 percent from recent levels by 2030. (AP)

A new sci-fi history looks back on climate change from the year 2393.

 
Jul 29, 2014
The U.S. Senate is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 16, 2014. (AP)

The “Do-Nothing” Congress just days before August recess. We’ll look at the causes and costs to the country of D.C. paralysis.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
This 15-Year-Old Caller Is Really Disappointed With Congress
Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014

In which a 15-year-old caller from Nashville expertly and elegantly analyzes our bickering, mostly ineffective 113th Congress.

More »
1 Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment
 
The Art Of The American Pie: Recipes
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

In the odd chance that our pie hour this week made you hungry — how could it not, right? — we asked our piemaking guests for some of their favorite pie recipes. Enjoy!

More »
Comment